I will agree that some reservations that have been expressed are indeed fair ones. It is important, for example, that research be vetted at least in-part by an independent party such as the NSF. And it is important, as Krebs suggests, that “out-of-the-box” research be funded that does not necessarily fall in line with the frame of reference or worldview that is immediately apparent to the Pentagon. So I do not take issue with many of the practical reservations that have been expressed, nor those that involve questions of academic freedom. These waters must be negotiated. For examples of DoD-funded research in other fields that are far from strictly narrowed one might take as some inspiration the well known and highly regarded Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (which, among other things, invented the internet that has so well liberated the realm of academia today). This organization is granted funding to perform advanced, far-thinking, and at times controversial research that is often unencumbered by the Pentagon’s most immediate needs. So a very rough model for the funding of projects in the social sciences does exist in parallel research organizations like DARPA, at least in spirit.

There are those among the DoD who assert that engaging an academic environment and constituent polity that is so outwardly hostile towards it is simply not worth the trouble. To them I have made an effort to stress the highly diverse and variegated nature of academic culture. Whenever two very large institutions, whether they be the military or the university, come into contact with one another it is important that the players at the interface between the two gain a healthy and fairly in-depth understanding of the complex culture and nuances at work within both communities. For example, in the military it is probably a safe assumption that in the search for an individual to serve as a brigade advocate for sexual harassment one would not go immediately to the nearest EOD team. This is not to assert that they are any more likely to be the instigators of harassment, only that culturally – given the preponderance of high-testosterone risk-inclined individuals – they are presumably less sensitive to the issues surrounding harassment than those in other career fields. (Not that such assignment decisions don’t come about. For example I still find it surprising that as a junior military officer I, a prime example of europhallocentric heteronormativity to couch it in certain terms, was selected once as a command Equal Opportunity Officer).

Likewise, an individual on the military side looking for individuals willing to engage in research need to be better aware of both the cultural nuances and histories surrounding the various fields and the actual purposes, objectives, and capabilities of those fields.

On the matter of the former it is important, for example, to recognize and be at least nominally sympathetic to anthropology’s historical use as a tool of colonialism and the natural aversion that those in the field have to repeating those mistakes (as silly as such an assertion may seem to those not involved in culture studies). As such, in seeking to recruit individuals to perform military-funded research the anthropology department should probably not be one’s first stop. At the same time, these department’s loud and often antagonistic criticisms of the military and their funding should not lead one to conclude that this represents the view of all of academia, or even most of the social sciences. Unfortunately, until very recently these antagonistic forces have been far more effective in projecting their message to the public, and to those holding the government purse, than those who are proponents of military-sponsored social science research.

The latter subject – awareness and understanding within the military of the actual functions and limits of the various fields within social science – is one that is particularly important to highlight. For example, there have been clear instances in the case of the Army’s Human Terrain System, where an individual with social science background but no specialization in the specific area of study (middle east, western and central asia, etc.) is brought on as a social science “expert.” Clearly limitations exist among the tools and knowledge base that a social scientist has at his or her disposal. And if one were to ask a random company or battalion commander what the difference was between an anthropologist, a sociologist, and a political scientist he probably wouldn’t be able present more than a very cursory explanation (unless he, perhaps, happened to study said fields while in college or graduate school). This lack of understanding perhaps stems from the so-called civil-military gap and, more specifically, the lack of substantive and commensal interactions between social scientists and the military. But it also stems at least in part from the frustrations that the military has been having in forming those relationships. Given the risks of being black-balled, social scientists in some of the fields that the military has deemed to be of interest won’t even discuss or consult with members of the military, never mind take on military-funded projects. It is too much of a risk. So, because of the unreceptive and hostile environment that has resulted from the strong, loud, and at times threatening (at least career-wise) repudiations by groups like the AAA the military is having a much harder time attracting qualified individuals to perform this work than I believe they otherwise would.

This, in my view, needs to be better counterbalanced. My feeling is if there were a stronger showing of support and guidance for those in the field interested in performing this kind of research by those in the social science field with influence – both those of high academic stature and those with influence on the granting of tenure – younger but better qualified specialists would not be so afraid to stick their neck out and pursue the opportunities that projects like Minerva and HTS offer.