Some thoughts on why the HTS needs a program review
Posted By Marc on December 17, 2008
The many woes of the HTS, at least the public casting and presentation of them, have been ably collated by my colleague Max Forte at Open Anthropology (e.g. here, here and here amongst many other places). What truly bothers me, in addition to Pravda being considered as a reputable publisher < rolleyes>, is that the “reports” that are coming out, and I am specifically thinking of John Stanton’s diatribes, are cherry-picked rhetoric and not proper program evaluations; politics, not science. Now, I certainly don’t fault Max for posting them or for the position he is taking; it is both logical and ethical if you grant his axiomatic assumptions. However, I try to take a more sceptical, scientific (in the old sense) stance towards reality, and I would like to see some proper scientific research on the HTS.
Why should there be a program review?
Having been an observer of social theatre for quite a few years as well as having been involved in the social arena, I am well aware that perception often trumps “reality”. This often happens when there is a concerted effort by one (or more) factions to gain dominance in the social arena at a symbolic level. In North America, this is often done using a social theatre tactic derived from the Baptists: a “speaking sin and redemption” “ritual” where one of the “Others” is presented as having “seen the light” and “being saved”.
Such a piece of social theatre was just presented by David Price in his recent article on the HTS handbook:
In his forthcoming book American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain, anthropologist Roberto González quotes U.S. Army, Lt. Colonel Gian Gentile, scoffing at suggestions that such cultural data would not be used for targeting in active war situations, responding to similar claims by Human Terrain anthropologist Marcus Griffin: “Don’t fool yourself. These Human Terrain Teams whether they want to acknowledge it or not, in a generalized and subtle way, do at some point contribute to the collective knowledge of a commander which allows him to target and kill the enemy in the Civil War in Iraq.”
Now, I have known Gian for over a year, and we have butted heads at the Small Wars Council. Gian is definitely in the “War is War” crowd, which is not an indictment, just an observation. I am certainly not surprised that he would make such a remark – he isn’t a fool by any means. What bothers me about it is the way it is presented: does anyone with two neurons to rub together think that a military commander will not make use of any and all information available to him?
What is at issue here is a “truth-claim”, where the evaluation of that claim is being made using two (or more) completely different and mutually exclusive sets of criteria. On the one hand, there is a concern that ethnographic knowledge might be used for military and/or “imperialist” purposes with an axiomatic assumption that this will cause more harm than not (see here), while on the other hand there is an assumption that it is better to provide “good data” to mitigate the harm that will be caused – generally available knowledge will be used anyway (see here and here).
Now this is one of the crucial truth-claim conflicts that is being made in the current “debate”. The problem, of course, is that beyond an initial “report” there is absolutely no evaluation of the actual effects and operations of the HTTs. This is the first reason why a program review should be conducted – let’s get some actual data into the debate.
The second reason why a program review would be useful is much simpler: too many people involved in the debate have little or no knowledge of military operations. Even those of us who have a little familiarity get caught up in our assumprions; a point hammered home to me by Drew’s recent comment that the military writes its handbooks assuming no knowledge. What appears to be constantly forgotted, even by those of us who should know getter, is that the military is a separate culture and it is unethical in the extreme for Anthropologists to denigrate another culture without studying it. Hey, didn’t our discipline get founded on that principle?
Would a review stop the “debate”?
In short, no. What it might do, however, is to clarify some of the terms of the debate, at least professionally. At the minimum, one of the things that I would hope for would be a clarification of the actual truth-claims of the HTS and how those are being operationalized.
Marc on 
Pascale Siegel on 
JWC on 
Daniel Gallant on 
MM on
That was very interesting Marc, and I don’t think of you as one of the more ideologically hardened writers in these debates. I am not writing as a matter of personal opposition to you, but I do take issue with several points that sometimes are stated on my blog as well by “hit and run” commenters.
It seems that John Stanton is becoming a favourite target of some critiques, for reasons that are not always fair. I can leave aside rolling eyes at Pravda (the rest of the world rolls its eyes at CNN, Fox, USA Today, and the New York Times), the fact is that Stanton is reporting facts that nobody else has brought to light. I don’t know that it is “rhetoric” either (do you call all facts you wish you did not hear “rhetoric”?) — much of what he produces is a straightforward data dump from his informants who, unlike either of us, are actually in HTS, or have recently left it — that is powerful, first hand information, from people who sided with the program to begin with. He is a proxy whistleblower. That should be obvious.
So if you want a proper program evaluation, as you say, you absolutely must hear what the whistleblowers are saying. I would have thought that in this regard Stanton’s work would be viewed as indispensible. And while we can scoff at Pravda (and maybe The Seoul Times), you didn’t mention NATURE, a scientific periodical, that is also condemning HTS.
What are Stanton’s politics? Do you know? In my prefatory remarks on his pieces I draw out the differences between his assumptions and mine — he is not against HTS, for one. Stanton’s basic argument is that HTS needs new management — mine is that it needs to be incinerated. Stanton here is hardly the most strident, radical, voice of opposition to the program. He mourned the treatment of a mercenary like Don Ayala, saying he was getting “Guantanamo treatment”…for a few days in jail, then released on bail, like few other murderers. He grieves when HTT members are hurt or killed, whereas I am rather indifferent. Really, you should feel lucky that Stanton is the one who gains prominence. You are essentially shooting at someone who is on your side.
The notion I am seeing at work here is that anyone who criticizes anything about any military program must be some wild, rhetoric spewing extremist. Does this sound familiar? It sounds like anyone who criticizes a black man is a racist. I hope you can live with such arrangements, I can’t.
You ask for data, Stanton provides an awful lot, then you reject it out of hand, and say we need science. Excuse me Marc, but then that is not science, and you are guilty then of the same denigration that you preach against.
What really struck me was this: “does anyone with two neurons to rub together think that a military commander will not make use of any and all information available to him?” No. And we all have more than two neurons to rub together. That’s the point: why were we all collectively treated like infantile idiots when all critics said the information would ultimately feed into lethal combat operations? Why did HTS spokespeople deny it so stridently? Exactly, we don’t appreciate being taken for fools, and I am glad that you are finally admitting that this is what they were doing.
Clearly then, any scientific analysis of HTS will have to exclude its present spokespeople, who have abundantly discredited themselves in dozens of mendacious turns of phrase, about faces, and double talk. If one wants to be scientific, then they should speak plainly, you know, as if the truth actually mattered.
But aside from that, how are you doing?
…and then there is the matter of the Liberal-NDP coalition, if we want something to really get hot about
Hi Max,
Always a pleasure having you critique my stuff
. And I know it’s not personal – it’s one of the reasons I like you – you keep me on my toes.
The main problem I have with Stanton’s writing is that I can’t consider it as “data”: all we have in those reports is anonymous “sources”. For all I know, he could be pulling it out of thin air. Given that, I can’t accept what he says as “fact”, and it’s why I use the term “rhetoric” to refer to it.
That’s my problem with his material (okay, and the fact that it comes out in Pravda
). I don’t really view him so much as a whistleblower but, rather, as someone who is crying “fire”.
I’ve been talking with people in the HTS as well, and I have also heard about problems. I don’t deny that there are problems, and some of them are probably quite serious. Let’s take all of the accusations about squandering money. Has there been an audit? Not yet or, at least, not one that is public. Are they wasting money? I would be extremely surprised if they weren’t; it’s in the nature of bureaucratic organizations to waste money. My question is are they any worse (or better) than other contract organizations in terms of using their resources? And to that, I can’t answer.
Would a proper program evaluation take into account what any whistelblowers are saying? Of course! If I was putting together such an evaluation, it’s one of the things that I would definitely do everything to find out about.
I’m certainly not opposed to criticizing military programs in general and the HTS in particular. I just want to make certain that I am targeting my criticism at the appropriate place.
For example, I would (and have) criticized the original idea to create a names database that would be turned over to the Iraqi government after the US pulls out. Why? Because that is literally recreating the worst of the CORDS program by providing Iraqi politicians with a detailed hit list.
At the same time, I have critiqued the military for not having enough cultural knowledge. Why? Because that lack of cultural knowledge has led to stupidities that resulted in too many deaths.
I won’t criticize the military (either Canadian or American) for going into either Afghanistan or Iraq because it wasn’t their choice or decision – it was the politicians who decided that (this is what I mean by targeting my criticism). I don’t view the military as acting as “imperialists” (and we really need to kill a few jugs over that term at some point in time
), but I do view Bush and his eminence grise Cheney as having acted as that.
Back to the “kill chain” issue. You’ve talked before about how open-source knowledge is and will be used by the military (and other bureaucracies, and corporations, and students, etc.). That’s why I say that it is inevitable that some of the knowledge produced by the HTS will wind up influencing the “kill chain”; hence the “two neurons” comment.
The HTS, however, has not claimed that they are not influencing the kill chain at any point, just that they are not influencing it directly. Indeed, from what I have heard (from HTT members and from BCT commanders), there is absolutely no interest in using the HTTs to do so – directly.
Indirectly is another manner.
You noted that:
“Clearly then, any scientific analysis of HTS will have to exclude its present spokespeople, who have abundantly discredited themselves in dozens of mendacious turns of phrase, about faces, and double talk. If one wants to be scientific, then they should speak plainly, you know, as if the truth actually mattered.”
Personally, I would have excluded them regardless of any of their actions simply because of a conflict of interest
. I do agree, however, that any program evaluation would need to be done by people outside of the program and, preferably, outside of both the Pentagon, the Beltway and BAE. Maybe the two of us should put in a proposal .
Outside of all that, I’m going nuts
. I’ve had six concerts in two weeks (including a tour to Mexico), finishing up the term, working on contracts, etc. as nauseum. I think I *might* be able to get a couple of days off in mid-January, but I’m not sure… 
The “coalition”….. AAARGH!!!!!! You know, 3/4s of my frustration with current Canadian politics is because my party doesn’t exist anymore. I think I’m going to start a new party for the next election – anyone want to run for the “Reincarnated Rhino’s”?
Marc, thanks for that article, and for your well thought out response to Max’s post. I agree with you on both accounts, and hope you get some rest between now and mid-January.
John Stanton is pretty good at taking a shred of truth and developing a “story”.
Unfortunately, his writing is closer to agit-prop than data. And if that’s considered “data” among the social scientist community, my already low opinion of the community as a whole is reset to an even lower level.
A question to Max about the label of mercenary: Do you get paid to do your job? if so, aren’t you just an XXXXX mercenary? And does that make you less of a human being? Belittling people who get paid to do a job should be beneath a social scientist (most of which work for money, last time I checked).
Hi Drew,
yes I do get paid to do my job. And so does a newspaper delivery boy. The term “mercenary” does not apply to anyone who ever gets paid to do work, but rather the kind of work, i.e., a private gun for hire. Certainly this is not news to you.
About anonymous sources — it is a frequent practice with those who wish to have their identities protected to request anonymity. Stanton does not betray their request, he is being ethical. What’s the problem? Have neither of you read unnamed officials being quoted in the Washington Post or New York Times? That’s also what makes Stanton a proxy whistle blower.
Incidentally, he does name some sources, such as the resignation letter he reproduced in full in one of his latest articles.
Drew, if you think Stanton’s work is agit-prop, then you probably don’t know the meaning of that term either, and I recommend that you do not use it until you do. If anyone stood back for a moment, they would realize that all Stanton is talking about is wasting taxpayer dollars and mismanagement. That’s it. There is NO anti-imperialism at all in his pieces.
Marc, your point stands that the military is a tool, it is not the source of decision-making. I don’t think I ever intended to suggest that all of this boils down to the military either — the military is serving a purpose, and it’s the purpose I focus on. It does happen that when I speak of the military, especially in terms of the Pentagon, that includes the civilian political leadership. So again, does criticizing what the Pentagon does mean that Stanton is anti-military? Not for a moment, and you would have a very tough time trying to prove otherwise.
Likewise, with respect, neither of you knows Stanton’s politics, and therefore any comments about propaganda and rhetoric are decidedly unscientific and subjective. See how easy it is to play that game?
Marc,
My beef is with your initial claims:
“I try to take a more sceptical, scientific (in the old sense) stance towards reality, and I would like to see some proper scientific research on the HTS.”
I guess I’m not really sure where to look for science in the “old sense” (presumably separated from politics). Galileo? Lysenko? The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments?
Science has never really been free of politics, and perhaps it shouldn’t be. The idea that we could just “consider the science” of so thoroughly a political project seems ridiculous.
We should all be concerned about the types of science our society peruses. The types of knowledge available, and how they is used, is inherently political.
As far as the “kill chain” goes, no doubt HTS will be used to enhance kinetic operations. I’m more concerned, however, with their use in PSYOP and Public Affairs. The modernist view of capital “S” Science breaks down when you start talking to these guys. They will not hesitate to tell you that old divisions between politics and science, information and influence, truth and truths, are epistemolgically outdated.
Hi Max,
I do agree that using anonymous sources or, to be somewhat more specific anonymized (sp?) sources, is common is journalism – which is the example you gave. But should journalistic accounts be considered as “science”? If so, I’m sure I could dredge some up that neither of us would agree with .
In the training I got, we were taught that one could anonymize informants names if they wished to remain anonymous, but we still had to offer some idea of their credibility, as long as that wouldn’t identify them. Now, you’re quite right that Stanton does name a few people, and those quotes I do take as valid data. It’s the unnamed sources, with no idea at all of what experience they have, that I have problems with.
Let me also point out another thing; I’m *not* talking about journalistic standards of data here, I’m talking about scientific standards (more in my response to Jeff on that…).
Let me talk a bit about separating the Military, the Pentagon and the Politicians for a moment. One problem with naming collectives as if they were singular is that we tend to apply a stereotype or caricature to all of the members of the collective. You know the type, “All X are Y” sort of thing. When you talk about The Pentagon, that certainly apperas to be one of those mixed up stereotypes – they appear to be military, but they also appear to be political.
Now I have no problem with you focusing on the purpose; actually, I think we are both doing that, but you are focusing on the political purpose and I am focusing on the operational purpose. In a similar manner, I have no problems criticizing individual components of programs or entire programs, but I have a great reluctance to criticize the entire institution of the Pentagon. What would replace it? To my mind this is analogous to criticizing an individual rather than the “race” that they are a member of.
“Does this mean that Stanton is anti-military”? No idea. Let’s ask him.
Hi Jeff,
Welcome to the fray
“I guess I’m not really sure where to look for science in the “old sense” (presumably separated from politics). Galileo? Lysenko? The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments?”
Hmmm, how about Karl Popper? Now, I’m not claiming that there is, could or should be a total separation of science from “politics” (small P to distinguish it from formal political processes). The two have, and are, mutually entwined, but that does not, and should not, mean that “science” should be controlled and defined by “Politics” – that is Lysenkoism.
Honestly, taking an argument line such as “Science has never really been free of politics, and perhaps it shouldn’t be” really bothers me. Science has, at times, stood up in the face of Politics (capital P for the formal process) and spat in its eye – consider Boas on race, consider Lyle on the age of the Earth, or Darwin on evolution.
“[p]erhaps it shouldn’t be”? I could also note that neither science nor politics (either capital or small p) are separate from religion. Would you argue that the “shouldn’t be”? If so, I’;m glad to know that both al Qaeda and Jerry Falwell have your support; at least at the philosophical level.
“We should all be concerned about the types of science our society peruses. The types of knowledge available, and how they is used, is inherently political.”
Let me make a point here – “society” doesn’t exist outside of the minds of individuals; it is an illusion. What you are really saying is that you believe that individuals should be controlled by other individuals who claim to speak for the collective, and that is a position I totally reject. I reject it on the part of self-serving bureaucrats, I reject it from missionaries, I reject it from politicians and I reject it from al Qeada and other religious fanatics.
In this rejection, I show my own political, religious and scientific biases; and yes, they are biases. Knowledge *will* be used – that’s one of my axiomatic assumptions about reality. Should “we” (i.e. the people effected by that use) be concerned with how it is used? Of course! Does that mean that I accept some self-appointed prophet telling me how I *should* use any type of knowledge? Nope. And that’s why I go back to science – in the “old” sense – as the purposefully secular via negativa route to trying to discover a more complete “truth”.
On the IO, PSYOPS issue, I’ve had a number of conversations with them. Quite interesting group of people, at least the ones I have been talking with. I also spend a lot of time with market research and marketing people, and I am well aware of their views of epistemology. And, BTW, what many of them are struggling with is their own outdated epistemologies. Many of them were trained in a Humpty-Dumpty universe that, as with all illusions, came tumbling down around their feet.
Max,
Just a quick last note before I crash…
“But aside from that, how are you doing?
”
I just finished my seventh concert in 3 weeks (Toronto, Ottawa x 2 and Mexico City x 4) and I’m off to Toronto tomorrow for a one-day meeting. Our CD just came out, and it is pretty freakin’ GREAT . No singing for the next two weeks – just marking and contract work .
Max posted:
“yes I do get paid to do my job. And so does a newspaper delivery boy. The term “mercenary” does not apply to anyone who ever gets paid to do work, but rather the kind of work, i.e., a private gun for hire. Certainly this is not news to you.”
Actually, Max, “mercenary” can be commonly applied to to both literal and philisophical “guns for hire”. This is common English useage, and certainly this is not news to you.
“Drew, if you think Stanton’s work is agit-prop, then you probably don’t know the meaning of that term either, and I recommend that you do not use it until you do. If anyone stood back for a moment, they would realize that all Stanton is talking about is wasting taxpayer dollars and mismanagement. That’s it. There is NO anti-imperialism at all in his pieces.
Along the same vein as your “agit-prop” zing, (I would say I have a better understanding of it than you, sir) I suggest you quit using the words “facts” and “valid data” until you come to at least a basic understanding of what they mean, as well. If you like, we could de-construct one of Stanton’s (shudder) articles, and I could point out his multiple errors in logic/”facts”/data for you.
And as far as your attempt at projection, vis-a-vis “anti-imperialism”, it may surprise you that what side I am on neo-, social or any other kind of “imperialism”.
I don’t need to know Stanton’s politics to know that he’s a bad writer, who takes limited information and makes grand extrapolations which could be and probably are inaccurate. He takes a series of variables and implies a causal relationship. (Or even an incorrect correlational relationship).
I’m saying that there are more variables out there, and better explanations for what is going on vis-a-vis HTS. And a quick scan of Max’s website reveals that HIS errors are in looking at the limited data available through his incredible bias.
Well Drew, you can choose to play semantic games, but that won’t rescue your argument. We do not call waiters and janitors mercenaries, alright? We call private soldiers that. That is what Don Ayala was. The word play suggests that you want to avoid facts, not study them. You are probably happiest when HTS meets with either applause or silence, because criticism you cannot handle. That is when we cannot hope for science, not without questioning, not without criticism, and not without honesty. Let me suggest you have no love of science.
Stanton makes no grand extrapolations at all. He often merely regurgitates what he is told by insiders. Talk about shooting the messenger.
Why don’t you try proving that he is wrong instead? You know, with facts.
And yes, I do have a bias, as you do very clearly. I don’t think you understood my anti-imperialism comment AT ALL: what I did write, if you care to read it, is that there is NOTHING in Stanton’s articles that could constitute in any an anti-imperialist perspective. OK? Citing mismanagement is not anti-imperialism.
Thanks Marc, but I am moving on.
Marc, just a final thought that I forgot to add:
If Stanton were merely making things up, then why don’t the people he names as the chief culprits of mismanagement in the program sue him for defamation? At the very least they could deny or contradict. They do not.
The silence speaks volumes.
Thanks Marc,
“Hmmm, how about Karl Popper? Now, I’m not claiming that there is, could or should be a total separation of science from “politics” (small P to distinguish it from formal political processes). The two have, and are, mutually entwined, but that does not, and should not, mean that “science” should be controlled and defined by “Politics” – that is Lysenkoism.”
Well, Karl Popper is a hilarious example of a philosopher imagining he knows how science works. I bring up the example of Lysenko because it highlights the danger that excessive politics (read: war) brings to science. I’m am not suggesting that politics control the outcome (facts) of science – that is misrepresenting my position. I am suggesting that the type of science we engage in as a society is inherently political, and that shielding scientific work from criticism under the rubric of “pure science” is morally problematic in the way that the Tuskegee experiments were.
““[p]erhaps it shouldn’t be”? I could also note that neither science nor politics (either capital or small p) are separate from religion. Would you argue that the “shouldn’t be”? If so, I’;m glad to know that both al Qaeda and Jerry Falwell have your support; at least at the philosophical level.”
ha, extra debating points here Marc. But, you know this is silly. Moreover, this is simply a tautology. We can say all scientists interact with religion, in that they have a religious point of view (even if that point of view is atheism), and that all religions have a scientific point of view (even if only to reject it).
Politics are different. We separate (ahem) church and state, so religion does not have a claim on in civic sphere, where science operates (especially publicly funded science like HTS). If people’s civic participation is informed by religion, so be it. So the relationship between science and politics is not equivalent to that of science and religion.
“Let me make a point here – “society” doesn’t exist outside of the minds of individuals; it is an illusion. What you are really saying is that you believe that individuals should be controlled by other individuals who claim to speak for the collective, and that is a position I totally reject. I reject it on the part of self-serving bureaucrats, I reject it from missionaries, I reject it from politicians and I reject it from al Qeada and other religious fanatics.”
Whoa there Mr. let’s separate science from society. Let’s not get our epistemologies in a knot. You can’t take a radically modern position (seperate science and society), and then in the next breath take a radically PoMo position (society is an illusion).
Arguing that society exists inside the minds of individuals is philosophically tenuous, at best. Also it seems to undermine the basic idea of democracy, which suggests that people should have some involvement in the way that the society to which they belong is run. Calling the very idea of society a fantasy deeply undermines democracy on a theoretical level, but perhaps this is not inconsistent with your views, as you seem to advocate a strong sense of individualism.
Either way, I do not think it’s fair to suggest that people having some sort of interest, perhaps even a say, in the type of science that is funded with their tax dollars necessarily plunges us into the bureaucratic, theocratic fascism that you seem to suggest. Yes, representational democracy has its problems, but this should make us want more democracy, not less.
Sigh. I forced myself to grab one of Stanton’s blogs, and have embedded commentary:
US Army Human Terrain System in Disarray
Millions of Dollars Wasted, Two Lives Sacrificed*
by John Stanton
John Stanton is a Virginia-based writer specializing in national security and political matters. His latest book is Talking Politics with God & the Devil in Washington, DC. Reach him at cioran123[at]yahoo.com. * Part II of this subject to follow at a later date.
According to sources, United States Army brigade commanders privately believe that the US Army’s TRADOC Human Terrain System (HTS) program is a “joke” and completely unnecessary.
The HTS program is publicly supported by brigade military commanders, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, only because it is a “pet project” of the currently politically popular US Army General David Petraeus.
BAE Systems, the prime contractor on the project, has repeatedly been pressured by the HTS program manager and his staff to hire individuals who are not field-experienced ethnographers/anthropologists, but rather Google-fed political and social scientists.
In two cases, pre-security clearance award investigations revealed that one candidate recommended for hire by senior staff was a felon.
The other candidate had health problems that would have compromised the functions of a deployed Human Terrain Team (HTT). BAE Systems has been the punching bag for the poor decision-making of HTS program managers and advisors.
The tragic deaths of two HTS members — HTT IZ3 Nicole Suveges and HTT AF1 Michael Bhatia — came amidst program management’s confusion over roles and missions, ignorance of threat situations, even dress code problems.
Key questions remain open. What’s the role of a civilian ethnographer/anthropologist working with the military in a combat zone?
Is a civilian trained to respond to a threat without threatening the life of the team? Should they carry weapons and wear military gear? Are they there to enhance the kill chain, organize and facilitate sporting events, or examine trash dumps for behavioral patterns? What kind of data do warfighters and negotiators really want? What happens when the HTT leaves the site of success? What’s the historical experience of the US military with human geographers? <What’s the price of tea in China? (see David Price, Anthropolgical Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War: Duke University Press, 2008).
Whether all this mattered in the deaths of Suveges and Bhatia is utterly debatable. But according to sources, Suveges was a no-show at many training sessions at Fort Leavenworth and not properly trained for work in a combat zone. She was sent initially to the United Kingdom to recruit there for the HTS program and then afterwards was ultimately deployed to the volatile Sadr City in Iraq where three weeks later she met her end. One insider had predicted prior to her death that “someone was going to get killed.”
One of the HTS prime movers, TRADOC HTS Senior Social Scientist, Mrs. Montgomery McFate (Phd, JD), took a seven month sabbatical on the eve of the first deployment of the HTT’s to Iraq in 2007. Whatever guidance she had to offer the fledgling HTT’s would have to wait months until her sabbatical ended. Not bad for a $200,000 base salary and $200,000 in overtime, according to reports.
Allegations of HTS members plagiarizing Defense Intelligence Agency reports and articles from anthropology-specific blogs have been made. Remotely using search engines/databases and attending conferences to troll for HTS-related data, and passing that off as legitimate field data, are also alleged. HTS program funds may also have been used to allow participants to gain advanced degrees.
At the helm of it all is program manager Steve Fondacaro who has been described as a “great used car salesman” but not interested in programmatic details. One of his current goals is to market the HTS program to the controversial AFRICOM project and keep the funding alive. <Linkage between marketing to AFRICOM and “just keeping funding alive? It seems like the Army could use cultural information specialists in Africa. So, is it possible that HTS would have a valid role to play there, and not just be a “way to keep funding alive?” But his task will be difficult. On his watch the Pentagon/taxpayers lost $15 million on the MAP HT software/hardware effort. The MAP HT software/hardware apparently sits unusable with the blue wiring connections still hanging from shelves where the system was to have been housed and operated.
Sources indicate that sexual dalliances,
falsified leave forms, crony no-bid contracts to Fondacaro colleagues (one in which deliverables were not fully provided), and verbal harassment of civilian staff have compromised the US Army’s TRADOC program. The hiring of a former Lincoln Group strategic communications specialist to handle public relations is a sure sign of trouble.
Worse still, the reach-back center at Fort Leavenworth remains understaffed. According to a source, the staff is “in a pinch” because Fondacaro is alleged to have used billets meant for reach-back operations to hire non-essential staff. Reach-back staff at Fort Leavenworth and HTT members in the field “do not communicate,” according to reports.
It is not clear whether Secretary Gates or General Petraeus are aware of these problems but they should be. Warfighters in the battlespace should not have to spend their time babysitting those who have an itch to play Army or engage in a proof-of-concept program that has, in one form or another, been behind every US attempt to colonize and/or subdue an intransigent population since the nation’s founding.
While the funding for the HTS program is not large, mere millions, that money could be used to enhance training for Special Operations fighters or even buy better equipment for them. America’s uniformed soldiers have been experimented with and on — whether via faulty national security policy and tactics or recycled physical and social science — for the last eight years. That’s enough!
Crap. My embedded comments were left off.
Here it is, in it’s sickening glory, again:
US Army Human Terrain System in Disarray
Millions of Dollars Wasted, Two Lives Sacrificed*
by John Stanton
John Stanton is a Virginia-based writer specializing in national security and political matters. His latest book is Talking Politics with God & the Devil in Washington, DC. Reach him at cioran123[at]yahoo.com. * Part II of this subject to follow at a later date.
According to sources, United States Army brigade commanders privately believe that the US Army’s TRADOC Human Terrain System (HTS) program is a “joke” and completely unnecessary.
–What “sources” would know what ALL US Army BDE CDRs believe about HTS? Where would this source have to be placed to know this? How is this kind of knowledge possible?
The HTS program is publicly supported by brigade military commanders, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, only because it is a “pet project” of the currently politically popular US Army General David Petraeus.
–”currently politically popular” insinuates Stanton can tell the future, and that there will come a time when GEN Petraeus will no longer be popular. It also assumes objection #1 of universal knowledge
BAE Systems, the prime contractor on the project, has repeatedly been pressured by the HTS program manager and his staff to hire individuals who are not field-experienced ethnographers/anthropologists, but rather Google-fed political and social scientists.
–How many field-experienced ethnographers/anthropologists are available and willing to go to HTS? BAE Systems is responsible hiring the best persons available to fill the contract, not to hire ideal, but non-existent candidates. Here Stanton reveals his ignorance of the programs staffing; mainly that anthropologists aren’t the only discipline included in candidates sought.
Google-fed political and social scientists,
–another non-provable assumption, and what is wrong with hiring someone who knows methodology, but needs to learn the area of operations, if they are the best currently available?
In two cases, pre-security clearance award investigations revealed that one candidate recommended for hire by senior staff was a felon.
–Which is why they have a pre-security clearance check, dumbass! Interviewers are not psychic.
The other candidate had health problems that would have compromised the functions of a deployed Human Terrain Team (HTT). BAE Systems has been the punching bag for the poor decision-making of HTS program managers and advisors.
–Again, this was discovered during the hiring process. The interviewer recommends possible candidates, the process eliminates based on disqualifying factors that don’t necessarily come up in the interview.
The tragic deaths of two HTS members HTT IZ3 Nicole Suveges and HTT AF1 Michael Bhatia came amidst program management’s confusion over roles and missions, ignorance of threat situations, even dress code problems.
–He makes an insinuated linkage, without proving cause, or even correlation or relevance of this statement. And the manner of both of these members’ deaths was irrelevant to their training or lack thereof.
Key questions remain open. What’s the role of a civilian ethnographer/anthropologist working with the military in a combat zone?
–If Stanton would’ve read the HTS website, it is painfully spelled out in three different ways what the role of the HTS members.
Is a civilian trained to respond to a threat
without threatening the life of the team?
–They’re trained similarly to any other US Army support element. Self-defense shooting isn’t as complicated as the ignorant assume
Should they carry weapons and wear military gear?
–It is completely up to the member, as spelled out during hiring and on the website
Are they there to enhance the kill chain,
–No, you idiot. You don’t win counterinsurgency by killing, you win by addressing root causes.
organize and facilitate sporting events,
–Only if they want to on their spare time
or examine trash dumps for behavioral patterns?
–Yes, that’s one way to collect data. Another way is through observation. We don’t all live and die by the questionnaire.
What kind of data do warfighters and negotiators really want?
–It is the job of the HTT to determine that, to ensure the data collected is relevant and within ethical guidelines.
What happens when the HTT leaves the site of success?
–Do a study, if you’re so inquisitive
What’s the historical experience of the US military with human geographers?
–What’s the price of tea in China?
(see David Price, Anthropolgical Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War: Duke University Press, 2008).
–Ah, yes. David Price. Now THERE’S an unbiased source….
Whether all this mattered in the deaths of Suveges and Bhatia is utterly debatable.
–And irrelevant, since Stanton only brings up the deaths as sensationalism.
But according to sources, Suveges was a no-show at many training sessions at Fort Leavenworth and not properly trained for work in a combat zone. She was sent initially to the United Kingdom to recruit there for the HTS program and then afterwards was ultimately deployed to the volatile Sadr City in Iraq where three weeks later she met her end. One insider had predicted prior to her death that “someone was going to get killed.”
–Did her lack of training lead to her getting killed? What Stanton and many others don’t “get” is the relatively low-risk nature of the war in Iraq. Frankly, it’s not like folks are dying in waves over there… All sorts of NGOs and others walk around Iraq without becoming casualties.
One of the HTS prime movers, TRADOC HTS Senior Social Scientist, Mrs. Montgomery McFate (Phd, JD), took a seven month sabbatical on the eve of the first deployment of the HTT’s to Iraq in 2007. Whatever guidance she had to offer the fledgling HTT’s would have to wait months until her sabbatical ended. Not bad for a $200,000 base salary and $200,000 in overtime, according to reports.
–Here, Stanton needs to actually come up with proof that she was paid the money while on Sabbatical from HTS, and not on sabbatical from her teaching gig, while doing HTS work. To make this accusation, he needs proof.
Allegations of HTS members plagiarizing Defense Intelligence Agency reports and articles from anthropology-specific blogs have been made. Remotely using search engines/databases and attending conferences to troll for HTS-related data, and passing that off as legitimate field data, are also alleged. HTS program funds may also have been used to allow participants to gain advanced degrees.
–If this data went to the Army, as part of the HTS product, you’ll not find many who give a crap. Good data is good data, and frankly the Army doesn’t care about plagiarism, outside it’s formal military education system.
At the helm of it all is program manager Steve Fondacaro who has been described as a “great used car salesman” but not interested in programmatic details.
–This is vague innuendo, not data.
One of his current goals is to market the HTS program to the controversial AFRICOM project and keep the funding alive.
–Linkage between marketing to AFRICOM and “just keeping funding alive? It seems like the Army could use cultural information specialists in Africa. So, is it possible that HTS would have a valid role to play there, and not just be a “way to keep funding alive?”
But his task will be difficult. On his watch the Pentagon/taxpayers lost $15 million on the MAP HT software/hardware effort. The MAP HT software/hardware apparently sits unusable with the blue wiring connections still hanging from shelves where the system was to have been housed and operated.
– Hmmm, MAP HT pre-dated Fondacaro by a couple years. Nice try in smearing the PM manager for a mistake made by the army two years earlier. He might try “research” next time.
Sources indicate that sexual dalliances,
–Oddly enough, Stanton’s two initial “sources” were the actual wrongdoers in the sexual dalliances thing. That way, Stanton can have his information “cake” and eat it too. In fact, I would suggest that most of Stanton’s initial data came from those two individuals, who have an axe to grind after being fired for screwing each other (superior-subordinate relationship) and then trying to defraud the company with luxury hotel and spa bills.
falsified leave forms, crony no-bid contracts to Fondacaro colleagues (one in which deliverables were not fully provided), and verbal harassment of civilian staff have compromised the US Army’s TRADOC program. The hiring of a former Lincoln Group strategic communications specialist to handle public relations is a sure sign of trouble.
–Ah, yes. Guilt by proximity. A nice political ploy, which makes for less than awesome data points for “real” scientific studies.
Worse still, the reach-back center at Fort Leavenworth remains understaffed. According to a source, the staff is “in a pinch” because Fondacaro is alleged to have used billets meant for reach-back operations to hire non-essential staff. Reach-back staff at Fort Leavenworth and HTT members in the field “do not communicate,” according to reports.
–Ah, yes. At last, a REAL PROBLEM! It is true that the HTTs are having difficulties with RRC communications. Something that the program admits in open-source briefings and has been attempting to correct/has corrected.
It is not clear whether Secretary Gates or General Petraeus are aware of these problems but they should be. Warfighters in the battlespace should not have to spend their time babysitting those who have an itch to play Army
–You mean like embedded journalists?
or engage in a proof-of-concept program
–Like the Manhattan Project, the M26 tank, or just about every wartime development since the beginning of time?
that has, in one form or another, been behind every US attempt to colonize and/or subdue an intransigent population since the nation’s founding.
–But I thought HTS was new? Maybe they used time machines to go back to the Revolutionary War.
While the funding for the HTS program is not large, mere millions, that money could be used to enhance training for Special Operations fighters or even buy better equipment for them. America’s uniformed soldiers have been experimented with and on whether via faulty national security policy and tactics or recycled physical and social science for the last eight years. That’s enough!
–Which exposes Stanton’s true agenda. (SOF/CA shill) He has repeatedly stated that SOF and CA should be doing the HTS job. Unfortunately, they’ve had several chances to do so, but THEY AREN’T DOING IT!!!! Basically, SOF, primarily and CA, secondarily, are first, institutionalized within the Army and second, not sharing information with regular US Army BCTs.>
In response to this little nugget:
“If Stanton were merely making things up, then why don’t the people he names as the chief culprits of mismanagement in the program sue him for defamation? At the very least they could deny or contradict. They do not.
The silence speaks volumes.”
Yes, it does. What it speaks is that Stanton isn’t a serious journalist, and no one in the program takes him seriously. But that would be an alternative explanation for their actions, and I doubt you are interested in anything like that….
It’s odd – I wrote a long response to Jeff’s comments last night, but it looks like they were never saved. Oh, well. Anyway, I did want to (re) make one point in response to this comment by Jeff
“Whoa there Mr. let’s separate science from society. Let’s not get our epistemologies in a knot. You can’t take a radically modern position (seperate science and society), and then in the next breath take a radically PoMo position (society is an illusion).”
Just as a note, you should not confuse an epistemology with a time period or a particular theory. As a point, I never argued that science and society *were* separate, just that one should strive towards that. A second point is that the idea that society is an illusion certainly precedes Post-Modernism, going back to the pre-Socratics. Personally, I prefer the phenomenological variant of that particular stance, mainly Shutz but Husserl will do.
oh well, next time maybe. I’d rather avoid a comments battle on the subtleties of pomo anyway. You’re right though – that idea does go back to the presocratics, which is fitting because it’s easy to trace (philosophical) modernity back to Plato. cheers.
[...] Human Terrain System (HTS), Uncategorized It certainly seems as if my previous post on the idea of evaluating the HTS caused a fair bit of reaction on both theoretical and epistemological grounds. I thought it would [...]