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.

And what of our weapons? I will admit that there are often far better options than the use of force but there are parts of this world where we could not effectively operate without the protection those weapons provide. There are parts of central Africa where Doctors Without Borders will not go – cannot go – to provide medical care because it is “too dangerous.” But we can. We go with our weapons not to threaten or to force but to establish some semblance of security so that we can provide sufficient care.

Your assumptions about the military and what it does are reductive and overly simplistic.

The bottom line for me, given my cerebral limitations and general academic mediocrity, was the possibility to carry out a long-term project (five years) that would provide the kind of funding that would be unthinkable were I to apply to SSRC, Wenner-Gren, Fulbright, Ford Foundation, NSF, etc. Moreover, I saw the opportunity to help assemble an international team of social scientists who could provide cross-cultural perspectives that would enrich my research goals centered on attitudes and perspectives.

Personally, I have conducted ethnographic research in Eurasia for more than a decade, but I have never been able to help employ and engage with host scholars in that part of the world in any capacity that I considered just to their abilities and insights b/c of, you guessed it, the pathetic dollar amounts of funding available through the usual channels.

Minerva, as I understand it from the ideas generated by Secretary Gates ( who holds a doctorate incidentally in Russian studies) was to help develop better aware cadres of both military and government personnel where issues such as Islam and Muslim societies are at stake. As you all know, the Minerva grants cover a much wider range of topics.

If the position colleagues take, as suggested by Dr. Robin’s reading of others’ opining, is that anything associated with a direct source of OSD (office of the Secretary of Defense) funding places one on the proverbial slippery slope of aiding and abetting purveyors of cancer, then, yeah, there’ no sense in arguing, but, if you, as a person, have some pride and dignity in your own abilities and capacities (despite what I say above, I actually have some confidence in my own) to inform others and work independently, then I cannot see how one doesn’t take a chance on this.

Dr. Robin cogently reminds readers to be aware of historical precedent with regard to the military or various branches of state government directly funding the social sciences. Of course, the intertwining is deep, but if we’re going to discuss Camelot, why not also discuss all of the anthropological research efforts and direct military involvement during the Second World War? Many pros and cons to those research accomplishments.

One aspect of ethical consideration that I haven’t seen discussed robustly here is the involvement of our host colleagues and people whom we would interview, observe, etc. Working in Eurasia just after the collapse of the COld War, I will say that I have always found it to be extremely hard to gain any rapport with acquaintances, colleagues, and even friends had I not been as explicit as I could about who funded my research, and where, for example, does SSRC money come from. As conscientious anthropologists, we usually tell our students that we try not to involve ourselves directly with government agencies and funding b/c anthropologists usually work in countries where people have good reason to fear almost all authorities. This certainly has been my experience.

Nevertheless working where I have my experiences were so mindblowing to me b/c I made the effort and the efforts were forced upon me to discuss all manner of political issues with Eurasians, including American foreign policy, 9/11, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamism, democracy, etc. I have also tried to be as forthcoming as I could be with people about what I might write and who may read what I write, which is to say nothing about how my own thought may be construed or misconstrued.

The major moral issues of Minerva Funding are the degree to which we compromise the anonymity and safety of consultants, the U. S. state’s agenda, and the scholars’ abilities to work with intellectual vigor and independence. It seems curious that certain voices in this debate already have the gifts of clairvoyance and prescience about the outcomes of these moral issues so that they seemingly answer these concerns definitively and absolutely. No need for any scientific skepticism here.

Lastly, what of the idea of the scholar who feels that he has something to say to those in government that reflects a reality or embodies knowledge that he is convinced people in government know little to nothing about. It isn’t only anthropologists who are famous for back seat driving. Unfortunately, if one entertains pretensions to informing policy or having some role, large or small, in steering an aspect of government, then I think you have to be as direct as possible in giving it a direct and serious effort.

Of course, I am sympathetic to those who despise militarism, military involvement in knowledge production, and any and all direct government involvement in social science. It just so happens that I don’t agree with you on all points.

I’ll end with reference to my second paragraph: I am would be very excited to have the potential for the time and funding that enable me to work carefully and consistently with host Eurasian colleagues who will enrich the nature and understanding of our research questions and project design beyond what I and my other American colleagues could do on our own. We are mutually dependent on each other, and till this point their opinions, criticisms, and findings have made the proposal what it is, so if we receive the funding, we have to acknowledge that at least its planning has been very cross-cultural in scope.

Has the Obama transition team been made aware with any key contact by archivists and supporters? Could the venue, Change.org, be used to lobby on behalf of INLA to make Pres. Elect Obama aware of the critical need to press SecDef Gates to take action and restore the collections to INLA and Iraqi control?

Absent that, it appears that no major media (beyond the few stories published last fall when Dr. Eskandar was on his abbreviated speaking tour) have followed this story.

Just one minor correction is needed: there are two separate IMF’s in the article, one being the Iraq Memory Foundation, and the other being the International Monetary Fund. The link for the IMF not recognizing the government of Iraq is actually about the Monetary Fund recognizing the interim government.

Other than that, I hope others will read this article and seriously reflect on it. I am also hoping to hear much more circumspect views from Craig Calhoun in contrast to what appears on video records of his address to the Minerva workshop this past August.

You seem to be saying it does many benevolent deeds when im reading in those same deeds neo-colonialism and cultural hegemony, maybe not by the barrel of a gun, but certainly with threats of some sort be they legal, social, political, economic, that all ultimately can be backed up by the barrel of a gun.

You also seem to be saying there is much overlap between the research interests of civilian operations and military ones. The militarisation of society, or rather the encouragement of both civil and military society in my humble opinion is a huge red flag warning of danger on the road ahead. The culture turn pursued by the military via minerva is a way to increase the relationship between private contractors and the military, it is the privatization of the research community at the behest of military command.

I wish people were less accepting of the status quo and more ready to demonstrate against it. Have we given up on the idea of fundamental societal change for good? Are we just going to accept the reach of the military into our universities and research agendas? The funding circuit is already skewed to the interests of the powerful lobbyist groups, why are we adding the most powerful economic lobbyist group itself?

Your defense that the connections are already there is one i fail to agree with, even if you can prove it with data. In my opinion we should draw the line somewhere, and if not, well then we should just admit were all soldiers of some sort now anyway and stop pretending we’re not.

thanks for your time…

But i reach this conclusion because of my personal ethos and moral compass. im against counterinsurgency and every war ive heard about in my lifetime (the last 30yrs). Ethically i dont agree with them.

However, you raise important considerations, issues based on inductive reasoning, that we must test and clarify. If this DoD funding initiative is going to mean many of the best researchers as defined by their peers and the various professional hoops one must jump through will not apply for its funding. And those who do apply will be the less capable researchers – “or those predisposed to sympathize” with the military. and its “a fair assumption…research in this area will be of lower quality than similar research funded by federal agencies” is this not a tangible, data driven objection we must make asap; because the way it is shaping up the military is going to do whatever it wants and to hell with those that dont agree with their direction.

maybe my language is over zealous but that’s the difficulty im having when such initiatives threaten not just my professional morals but the sort of world we will leave to our children. Im fed up living in a world ruled by guns, bombs and whoever spends more on the military. Its insane. And it seeps into everything. As Latour makes the point elsewhere the War never ended. It never ended because those with power and privilege dont want it to. This is another pillar in extending war as our way of life.

Not even sure i should leave my thoughts here…

ANyways the read was informative thanks.