Social Sciences and the Military: |
“Know your enemy.” Sun Tzu
“Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men.” George S. Patton
With those two quotes in mind, the House Science and Technology (S&T) Committee’s Subcommittee on Research and Science Education and the House Armed Services (HAS) Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a joint hearing on April 24 that examined: “The Role of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in National Security.”
For Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), chairman of the S&T Subcommittee, the hearing presented an opportunity to remind people of his role in defending social and behavioral science grants at the National Science Foundation (NSF) from “specious” attacks in 2007, including one that was “crucial in helping to train our soldiers currently stationed in the Middle East.” (see Update, May 14, 2007).
Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Chairman of the HAS Subcommittee, viewed the hearing as a chance to learn “of the potential offered by social and behavioral sciences for improving our understanding of our enemies and their local context so that we can increasingly deny terrorist the base of support and the freedom to operate in a given region.” The Ranking Republican on the S&T Subcommittee Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), aside from reminding everyone of the Patton statement above, noted that “social and behavioral research is of crucial importance to this entire nation and our own security as we move forward in an ever-changing world filled not only with new technological advancements, but also with increasingly complicated human dimensions.”
Much of the hearing focused on the use of what the Army is calling Human Terrain Teams (HTT) in Afghanistan and Iraq. These were noted by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in his speech to the Association of American Universities (see Update, April 21, 2008). At the hearing Colonel Martin Schweitzer, just back from Afghanistan, explained the HTT as five to eight person teams “comprised of social scientists, anthropological experts, and other trained military personnel.” These teams help military commanders understand the human terrain they are surrounded by and “discern how to use ‘soft power’ as a means of achieving desired effects.” They, according to Schweitzer, are not only “embedded cultural advisors” for Commanders, but they assist “to maneuver formations within tribal communities in such a manner that reduces the threat to all involved parties.” The Colonel noted how these teams have helped “link the people of Afghanistan to their government at an incredibly accelerated rate.” He further suggested the Army is quite grateful for their social scientist helpers quoting one commander as saying, “If you could have one for every company command, they would be a phenomenal asset.”
DOD Deputy Undersecretary for Science and Technology (S&T), Andre van Tilborg, echoed Colonel Schweitzer’s comments. He testified that fighting asymmetrical wars means the military must have “adequate cultural knowledge” and a “deeper understanding of human behavior.” He suggested that DOD is spending about $150 million on social and behavioral science research, about one percent of S&T appropriations. He indicated that DOD is also undertaking a new initiative in the area of socio-cultural understanding and modeling. Van Tilborg also reviewed the use of social and behavioral research by the military noting its importance during both world wars through its use of human factors research for personnel selection and training, simulation technologies for potential scenarios, decision support tools, and other areas.
David Segal, head of the Center for Research on Military Organization and Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, testified about his long involvement with research for the military on a host of other issues. His Center’s research programs focus on military families, diversity in the military, military operations, and the intersection of the military and society. The family research has examined financial well-being and the impact of geographic mobility. Diversity studies have looked at issues of gender, race, and sexual orientation. The research on military operations have dealt with multinational peacekeeping and insurgencies. The investigations of the civil-military interface have included studies of youth attitudes and behavior regarding the military, how changes in American professions and organizational processes such as outsourcing have affected the military, and the impact of base closings on host civilian communities.
Representing the National Science Foundation (NSF), Mark Weiss, Director of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) directorate’s Division on Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, explained to the committees that basic research in SBE sciences has important implications and applications for society, including the military. Citing the National Academies’ report Human Behavior in Military Contexts, which promulgated an agenda for future basic research that could be applied to military situations (see Update, September 24, 2007), Weiss suggested that NSF is providing significant support for all the areas noted in the report. He cited a number of examples involving intercultural competence, teams in complex environments, technology and training, including spatial learning, emotional states, nonverbal communications, and cognitive research on thought, perception, affect, and action in the human brain.
Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) wondered about the possibilities for a research partnership between NSF and DOD. Weiss noted some informal channels and networks including NSF and DOD representation on the newly established Subcommittee on Human Factors of Homeland National Security as part of the National Science and Technology Council structure.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), the Ranking Republican on the HAS Subcommittee, wondered about how rigorous the SBE sciences were? Weiss pointed out that the use of new technologies and new ways of thinking have certainly added rigor in recent years. Segal suggested that it is often difficult to study “complex individuals in complex social systems.” Van Tilborg noted in his written testimony that: “The social sciences are based in theories that are empirically tested, and the questions that the social and behavioral sciences try to answer are in some ways harder and more difficult than the physical sciences.” He argued that they are not “soft sciences.” He also told Thornberry that in regarding applying the social sciences to the military it is often difficult to run controlled experiments.
Where will all this renewed interest in the importance of the SBE sciences to the national security lead? One possibility, according to congressional staff, is increased funding for this research in the DOD budget.
Note: MPSA is a governing member of COSSA, which monitors all federal agencies that provide support for social and behavioral research and advocates for a non-politicized research agenda. This article appeared in the May 5, 2008, issue of COSSA Washington UPDATE. For more information about COSSA, visit their website at http://www.cossa.org/.