Maximilian Forte -

UPDATED: 03 March 2010; 17 March 2010; 19 March 2010; 22 March 2010; 26 April 2010; 03 June 2010; 05 June 2010; 30 November 2010; 10 June 2011; 30 September 2011

At least 34 corporations have vested interests, through contracts gained, in supporting the U.S. Army’s Human Terrain System (HTS) in particular, and in the development of “human terrain” capabilities across various branches of the Army apart from HTS (see for example: “The Pentagon’s “Other” Human Terrain System?“). Most of the newspaper coverage of HTS has focused almost exclusively on the role of BAE Systems, and the claimed “nationalization” of HTS¹ (turning HTS employees into government workers, specifically labeled “intelligence analysts”) has not meant either the decline or disappearance of private contracting. Recruitment, training, and the design and equipping of technology used by HTS, and other human terrain branches in the Army, are all in the hands of private contractors. Several HTS employees have been, or continue to be, also employees of these corporations. There is considerable overlap and movement of senior personnel between several of these corporations and HTS in particular. Some of these individuals know each other from past work conducted for some of these private contractors.

Any suggestion that HTS is not about supporting war, and separate from the military-industrial complex and corporate war-profiteering, is at the very least naïve or disingenuous. As soon as corporations become such a significant part of the picture, arguments about “saving lives,” “peace keeping,” and “cultural sensitivity” become, at the very best, secondary concerns. The main concern for any corporation is the accumulation of capital. The main concern for any war corporatist is the accumulation of capital derived from engagement in warfare – the main drive is to maintain the war that produces the contracts that generate revenue and growth. HTS is thus very much part of the neoliberal economy of warfare, and academics are recruited – regardless of whatever they believe were the reasons for their recruitment – in order to support imperial warfare and thus to expand the profits of empire. Indeed, it would seem that several of the more outspoken HTS recruits from academia have been extremely naïve in their representations of the nature and purpose of their work – either naïve, or consciously duplicitous and cynical.

It should also be noted that several of these corporations (Lincoln) have been found to have roles in planting propaganda in foreign newspapers, which later fed back into U.S. domestic media coverage of foreign wars, and have performed roles in domestic spying (BAE Systems, Science Applications International Corporation [SAIC], MZM Inc.) and building domestic “counterterrorism” and “homeland security” capabilities (ManTech, and others). What is thus also being constructed, with the aid of HTS as pretext and justification, is the further development of repressive technologies aimed at the U.S. public. This is part of the blowback of empire against democracy at home.

HTS spokespersons have stressed that HTS does not do “intelligence” work, and nor do they support better targeted killing. With respect to the intelligence issue, usually we are faced with conflicting definitions of “intelligence” and some human terrain proponents do in fact speak of “ethnographic intelligence” and “cultural intelligence.”² The point is that some of these companies are in fact primarily interested in intelligence work, according to their own terms. Booz Allen Hamilton explicitly seeks people who have extensive experience in the U.S. “intelligence community,” to train HTS recruits. The Walsingham Group is simultaneously engaged in “Human Factors & Human Social Cultural Behavioral Programs” and “Intelligence, CI/HUMINT, SOF & Irregular Warfare Support”, mixing interests with a Special Ops background, and support for Homeland Security. HTS contractors certainly have a “dark side” that the promotional propaganda for the human terrain doctrine obscures. Some are explicit that their technology, such as Ascend’s Tactical Ground Reporting device (Now General Dynamics), is intended to “increase combat effectiveness.” One of the contractors, CACI, was at the heart of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. In Iraq, the Wexford Group, now owned by CACI, was directly involved in supporting the targeted killing of people suspected of laying IEDs, supporting what were called “small kill teams” (note also HTS’ origins in the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defense Organization, JIEDDO). SCIA has also developed maps explicitly for the purpose of pinpointing the presence of “insurgents” or “bad guys” based on recorded behavior patterns.

Some of the companies also seem perfectly innocuous, lacking a profile or mission that is primarily military or intelligence-oriented. Some also lack more than very superficial websites that do little beyond providing a generic commercial image, a name, and maybe contact information – with nothing indicated about clients or contracts, or even who are the main officers of the company. Not all of the companies are American – at least one, MTC Technologies, is a Canadian company. Another of the companies is owned by American Indians.

Especially interesting are the several cases of clear overlaps between the companies’ personnel and consultants. For example, one will find overlaps between Georgia Tech, Aptima, and Mitre, in the figure of Eduardo Salas. Kari Kelton of Aptima also served HTS.³ HTS’ Steve Rotkoff is also tied to McNeil Technologies (Now AECOM). Strong links tie Glevum Associates, the Lincoln Group, and HTS, to the extent that their senior personnel seem to be triplicated across all three: HTS’ Milan Sturgis, at the heart of a sexual harassment scandal,⁴ works as a consultant for Glevum; Alicia Boyd and Laurie Adler, both formerly with Lincoln, moved into HTS, and now Adler has moved into Glevum (for more on Adler see here and here). Daniel Wolfe, IT Director for HTS is closely tied to both Glevum and USI. Charlie King worked for both HTS and Wexford – CACI.⁵ We also learn that STI, a contractor for HTS, was owned by Blackwater, the mercenary corporation now called Xe. In addition, HTS’ Audrey Roberts, who we know from her glowing sales articles about HTS in the Journal of International Peace Operations (see here and here), has also served as a Research Associate for the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) and Assistant Editor of its journal (JIPO) — the point being that IPOA is an association of private military corporations, including the likes of Blackwater.

¹ DeYoung, Karen. (2009). U.S. moves to replace contractors in Iraq: Blackwater losing security role; other jobs being converted to public sector. The Washington Post, March 17, A07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602720_pf.html

² Renzi, Fred, Lieutenant Colonel. (2006). Networds: Terra Incognita and the Case for Ethnographic Intelligence. Military Review, Sept-Oct. http://www.diigo.com/cached? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.army.mil%2Fprofessional writing%2Fvolumes%2 Fvolume4%2Fdecember_ 2006%2F12_06_1.; Delp, Benjamin T. (2008). Ethnographic Intelligence (ETHINT) and Cultural Intelligence (CULINT): Employing under-utilized strategic intelligence gathering disciplines for more effective diplomatic and military planning. IIIA Technical Paper 08-02. Institute for Infrastructure and Information Assurance, James Madison University, April. http://www.box.net/shared/ha5x74mccc; Flynn, Michael T., Major General; Captain Matt Pottinger; and, Paul D. Batchelor. (2010). Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan. Center for a New American Security, January.http://www.box.net/shared/9yudnxm9xg; Naquin, Doug. (2007). Remarks by Doug Naquin, Director, Open Source Center. CIRA Newsletter, 32 (4) Winter.http://www.box.net/shared/xy7tlnmb5e; see also a growing list of papers and reports that tie HTS to intelligence work, understood on the many different levels of “intelligence”: http://www.diigo.com/user/openanthropology/HTS%20intelligence

³ http://www.diigo.com/cached?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.
com%2Fpub%2Fkari-kelton%2F15%2F530%2F876

⁴ http://zeroanthropology.net/2009/02/26/some-breaking-news-on-the-human-terrain-system-death-threats/

⁵ http://www.diigo.com/cached?url=http://www.linkedin.com/pub/king-charlie-col-r/a/175/916

Research for this report was done in part with the aid of references from the writings of John Stanton and Roberto J. González, as well as additional independent research. Further updates were produced with the assistance of Benjamin Hirschfield and Roberto J. González.

First, this is the complete list of companies compiled to date:

(1) Alpha Ten Technologies, Inc.
(2) Aptima, Inc.
(3) Archimedes
(4) Ascend Intelligence (General Dynamics C4 Systems)
(5) BAE Systems
(6) Booz Allen Hamilton
(7) Careerstone Group
(8) Connecting Cultures
(9) Echota Technologies Corporation
(10) Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation
(11) Glevum Associates
(12) K3 Enterprises
(13) Lincoln Group
(14) MASY Group
(15) McNeil Technologies
(16) MITRE
(17) Monitor 360
(18) MTC Technologies
(19) MZM, Inc.
(20) NEK Advanced Securities Group, Inc.
(21) Northrop Grumman Corporation
(22) Overwatch Systems
(23) RAND Corporation
(24) RTI International
(25) SAIC
(26) SCIA Solutions LLC
(27) Sensor Technologies (ManTech International Corporation)
(28) USI Inc.
(29) Wexford Group – CACI
(30) CLI Solutions
(31) Walsingham Group
(32) Integrated Training Solutions
(33) i2 and ESRI
(34) DevelopMental Labs Inc. (DMLI)
(35) Lockheed Martin
(36) CGI

CONTINUE TO THE COMPLETE REPORT…

Wendell Berry -

We are no longer talking about theoretical alternatives to corporate rule. We are talking with practical urgency about an obvious need. Now the two great aims of industrialism—replacement of people by technology and concentration of wealth into the hands of a small plutocracy—seem close to fulfillment.

At the same time the failures of industrialism have become too great and too dangerous to deny. Corporate industrialism itself has exposed the falsehood that it ever was inevitable or that it ever has given precedence to the common good.

It has failed to sustain the health and stability of human society. Among its characteristic signs are destroyed communities, neighborhoods, families, small businesses, and small farms.

Dr. Teresa Whitehurst -

"Many parents have experienced the eerie intuition that tells them their child is in danger."

"Mom, there's this test we're supposed to take tomorrow," my daughter told me one night last year, "but I have a funny feeling about it. Our guidance counselor came in and said that the school would be giving all juniors a special career-aptitude test, to show us where our talents are. It sounded good, but then a military recruiter came in and said that this test, called the ASVAB, could help us choose the best career path.

"He said, 'any personal information will be kept strictly confidential.' I asked if the military would keep our names and numbers, and he just repeated that it's 'confidential.' That was when I knew something was wrong – why make such a big deal about getting our personal information, unless that's the point of the whole thing?"

Indeed.

The guidance counselor reassured one boy who asked a very good question that no, the ASVAB had nothing to do with the military or the possibility of being drafted. No, the names and information would never be used in the event of a draft.

Unconvinced, that boy and my daughter talked after class and decided to ask if they could refuse to take the test. They were the only students who opted out – the others were scared not to take it. One friend simply said he was taking the test because he didn't want to "get in trouble." Another classmate said, "Well I don't want to take it, but if we don't, the school might not let us graduate!"

Notice that even the two most skeptical children felt they had to ask for permission not to take the test: they'd been given to understand that the test was mandatory because the guidance counselor had announced that "all juniors will be taking the ASVAB tomorrow."

Whatever Happened to Parental Consent?

Parents, if you want to protect your child from military recruiters and the coming draft, you'd better speak up and speak up now. If you think your child is safe at school, think again – now that Mr. Bush's wars are in full swing, he needs a steady stream of warm bodies for the battlefields. And the easiest warm bodies to get, of course, are the young ones.

Kids are so much easier than mature adults to dupe with glorious words of manhood, honor, sacrifice, and heroism. That's why the military is focusing so heavily on getting them at school, where their parents can't see what's going on.

I'm sorry to say that, with a few admirable exceptions, American schools are no longer safe places for learning: they've become essential tools in the Pentagon's toolbox, allowing recruiters (and future draft boards) easy access to the children in their care.

The ASVAB "aptitude" test was news to me; I'd never even heard of it, and the school never asked for parental consent before administering it. None of the parents I knew had any warning about the test or when it would be given. When they did hear about it, most of them believed that this was just another standardized test, or that kids refusing to take it would be penalized in some way.

Isn't it just the perfect setup? So much can be said without actually saying it. The official tone of the announcement, the introduction of the test by a trusted guidance counselor, the disavowal of any ties to the military: these routine-sounding aspects of the ASVAB convince teens and parents that every student must take it.

Support Our Children

To keep the military's hands off your child, just say no to the ASVAB. Here's how:

Call your child's school and ask if and when the ASVAB will be given.
If the answer is yes, ask what the consequences will be for students who refuse to take it (there shouldn't be any).
Ask if the school will require written parental consent before students can take this military "aptitude" test, the way it does for field trips to museums, etc.

Ask what arrangements are provided for students not taking the test (what they'll be doing during the time when the test is being administered). The school should have an interesting learning or recreational experience planned for opt-out students, not something that feels like (and is) punishment (going to the office, sitting silently while others take the test, or being given busy work).

Ask what the procedure is for "opting out." Some schools require that the student go to the guidance office to sign an "opt out" statement. Students usually have to sign something stating their refusal to take the ASVAB, which may be accompanied by legal-sounding words, written or stated, such as "I hereby state that I am refusing to take the ASVAB aptitude test…." At some schools, the burden is on the parents ("let the buyer (parent) beware") to figure out what the ASVAB really is, then write letters refusing consent for their children to take the test.
Take all steps required by the school to keep your child safe from the ASVAB scam.

If the burden is on the child to refuse the test (which can be very difficult due to peer pressure or adult insinuations that it's required), you'll need to reassure your child ahead of time that it really is safe to refuse. Sometimes what's said in opt-out procedures can intimidate students: "Do you realize that you are refusing to take an important test?," "All your classmates are taking this test; we have nothing for you to do while they're taking it," "Okay, but I hope you understand that if you don't take the test your aptitudes won't be on file," or even "Why don't you want to serve your country?"
Spread the word to all the parents and children you know. Educate them about the the ASVAB's real purpose.
If you can, talk with other parents and sympathetic educators about arranging an ASVAB Parental Advisory, which could be a one-time talk at the next PTA meeting, or a discussion group announced at school and held in a nearby library.

Suggest that the school hold an honest informational session for all students on the ASVAB, its purpose, how the military could use students' information (now and in a military draft) – and how students can opt out of the test. Every school, if it's really doing its job, should encourage students to think for themselves and understand their rights. Schools should be places of learning, not tools of the Pentagon.

Children, especially teens, are highly suggestible – just the way the military likes them. That's why the underhanded recruiting of this age group is inappropriate, unethical, and immoral. It is the school's responsibility to protect the children in their care by (a) providing parents and students with honest information about the ASVAB and other recruiting ploys, and (b) requiring parental consent before any child can take the test.

An absurd double standard exists in American schools: parental consent is required for a trip to the museum, but not for military recruitment. The school required my written consent to allow my daughter to simply volunteer in the office – but not to take a sneaky test that places her at risk for recruiting harassment or getting drafted into combat!

Show this article to every parent and teen you know, because forewarned is forearmed. We've had enough of this "Let's you and him fight" business, where "you and him" are children whose lives have just begun.

source: http://www.antiwar.com/whitehurst/?articleid=5049

The Tragic Death of Brian Arredondo

Linda Pershing, with Lara Bell -

Brian Arredondo never really recovered from his brother’s death in the Iraq War. When they were kids, Brian adored his older brother Alexander and tagged along with him whenever he could. They were often seen playing together in parks and schoolyards in communities surrounding Boston, Massachusetts, and Bangor, Maine, where they grew up.

As teens the two boys were perfect targets for military recruiters: first-generation Americans on their father’s side (he emigrated from Costa Rica), working-class youth (Alex attended a technical high school where much of the curriculum focuses on job training), living with their mother after their parents divorced when they were young. Promises of career training, male camaraderie and “becoming a man,” appeals to patriotism, a $10,000 signing bonus, and funding for college enticed Alex Arredondo to join the marines, just a month before September 11, 2011.

Jon Letman -

Haggith Gor & Rela Mazali  -

Both of us have been looking for years at the implications of raising children in a state that requires them by law to enlist in the army at age 18. At first we were looking at ourselves. We were two very politically aware and active women, Israeli and Jewish, conscious feminists, taking part in organizations that opposed Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank, and worked against Israel’s violations of human rights. For many years each of us invested a great deal of time, energy, creativity, and what money we could, to working in and with such organizations. We regularly took part in demonstrations and protest actions.

As part of these processes, each of us formed a deeply critical view of actions taken by the Israeli army, and of the ways in which the military was deployed by successive governments, irrespective of the party in power. We began asking ourselves to what degree the military has been, and is, used as an organization truly providing defense; whether it is in fact too easily usable for purposes of oppression. We delved into extensive reading about processes of militarization in other countries, including South Africa, Ireland, Argentina, Guatemala, Chile, the USA, Hawai’i. Each of us read different books and articles, as we compared and shared in an excited atmosphere of urgency and discovery. We conducted an ongoing, unfolding dialogue about similarities and differences between the Israeli case and the ones described in our reading. We constantly drew detailed analogies or identified contrasts with our own personal experiences and insights, generating a growing, living body of shared knowledge. Gradually, we began to ask whether the power and status of the Israel Defense Force allowed and even actively encouraged continuing use of warfare as a political strategy. Were these, and not external circumstances beyond our control, actually perpetuating the state of war?