American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain

Gonzalez criticizes the Human Terrain Teams (HTT) and the entire Human Terrain System (HTS) on the basis of personal opinion (which is very liberal) and on the "fact" that these people were not chosen for any experience but on the basis of education. He thus commits the ultimate hypocrisy because all of his research (and he sites a a lot of it which is the only reason I didn't give this book one star): he was never there or did anything like this himself so he has zero experience just like those he criticizes. He makes apparently valid points but other than reading the writings of others, has no expertise, no experience and thus no right to second guess and armchair general these people from the comfort of his home while they risk their lives for him and his right to criticize. I find it curious that those who have written on the subject from the point of view of the subject (HTT), all wrote favorably. Gonzalez was never there nor does he have their education or training and yet feels qualified to disparage their work.This book isn't even written well in the fact that it is a dry and boring treatment of the subject. It occurred to me that I am no more qualified to judge Gonzalez than he was to judge the HTT teams. So I reluctantly gave the book two stars rather than the one star I personally thought it deserved.

I was writing my thesis on the relationship between the intelligence community and anthropology, so I was basically grabbing any literature I could. The work is good and to the point, albeit you can't go into it thinking it's going to be a balanced argument. There are a few times he comes off as heavy-handed, but it is all well researched and structured.

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." - Friedrich NietzscheBetween the title, the blurbs, and the creditentials of the author, I expected an academically rigorous, well structured, and thoughtful discussion of counterinsurgency (especially as practiced by the U.S. in the Iraq and Afghanistan), a carefully laid out and documented critique of the Human Terrain System using reliable and documented sources, and substantive, practical, and viable options for a way forward in the near term in the current conflicts and for the long term in national policy and strategy.I was disappointed in every instance.Note to self: if an author includes the caveat "If at times my words carry traces of bitterness, it is unintentional" in the preface, set the book down and walk away. To be fair, I didn't notice bitterness, on the other hand, the ceaseless venom directed at the U.S. military might have masked it. Every single reference to the U.S. military was tagged with negative or derisive adjectives.The entire book was devoid of useful definitions of any of the critical terms like 'insurgency', 'counterinsurgency', 'propaganda', etc. The author assumes that the reader holds a common definition and a common conceptual value in every instance.Regarding insurgency and counterinsurgency, the author clearly assumes that any insurgent or revolutionary anywhere is on the side of angels. This is either incredibly naive or disingenuous. Nowhere in the entire volume did I see a single, practical idea for reducing violence and promoting Iraqi, Afghan, or any other nation's self-determination, despite grand statements about how the U.S. has attacked self-determination and what a universal right it is.Regarding the Human Terrain System (HTS); Gonzalez went on at length about how evil it is, without a concrete, documented example of harm HTS has caused, other than being a drain on the national coffers. He would routinely compare it to a program from the Viet Nam era, but the delta between HTS and Phoenix is so vast that the comparison can, at best, be considered an exageration and a rhetorical device. His most influential and informative source about HTS was a woman who was fired after she lost her security clearance (according to the Kansas City Star, Aug 2008), and he never questioned the validity of her statements. Hearsay was also a frequent element in his arguments about HTS.Regarding practical and viable ideas for a way forward in near term and strategic planning; Zip. Nadda. Near the end, there was something about teach-ins, and consciousness raising, but nothing substantive or useful.And on page 100 of the 130 page essay, Godwin's Law came into play, thereby invalidating anything Gonzalez had to say.Ironically, Gonzalez ruthlessly attacks the Army for not sourcing a field manual to academic standards, when this book lacked footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography. He also cites the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, but neglects to mention his role in that organization.I could go on at length, but in the interests of readability I will wind down.Why would an associate professor at San Jose State University write an essay that would have gotten me an 'F' at Rutgers University? I can only speculate, but I would be curious to compare San Jose State's wage scale to HTS wage scale for PhDs. The generous compensation HTS PhDs were getting for going into harm's way, compared to the pitance an associate professor at a state university is paid couldn't possibly have anything to do with the passion Gonzalez invested in this text. He also expounds at length on his view that war and violence can be abolished. An interesting position, and if he presents it to the leadership of the Shi'a extremist elements in Baghdad, or the leadership of Israel or Hezballah, I would enjoy watching the video from a safe distance. His belief in a charming fantasy of a world without conflict may have been the real motivation.My greatest disappointment is that Gonzalez' extreme and emotional attack on HTS will only solidify current support for it, where a more rational and rigorous document would be much more powerful. HTS is problematic in many ways, the use of social science being the least of them. Comparing it to Phoenix and using slippery slope arguments is counter productive. Why didn't the author spend as much effort asking where the State Department is and why they aren't doing the talking and rapport building that the Soldiers are doing?Pass on this one, if you want my copy and don't mind the marginalia, drop me an email, and I'll pay the postage to get it out of my house.E. M. Van CourtPost Script --My copy has moved on. See the comments under this review for someone else willing to mail out a copy.-Having had some time to cool off and reflect on this, Gonzalez' great failure was that he didn't get commentary from anyone who disagreed with him. Had he show his notes or discussed his thoughts with someone who understood the issues but disagreed with him, he would have been able to make many of his arguments more rigorous and less the shrill, self-righteous activist. Hopefully, this is the delay on "Counter-Counterinsurgency", now over a month late. V

This book is downright insulting. Having done extensive research and having had first hand experience with the Human Terrain Teams, I expected something a little bit more factual and not as bitter. Continually bashing the Human Terrain System, Roberto writes this book as if he were a tantrum-fuled loser of a teenager blogging about the cool kids at school because he didn't get picked first for the dodgeball team. Not only does he continually degrade the operators within this community, he points middle fingers at BAE Systems about once every three pages to get his point across.What do I gather from reading this book? A two-bit washed out Anthropologist wanted to roll with the big dogs so he applied for the Human Terrain Team through BAE Systems. BAE Systems said: "Sorry dude, we don't want you on our team." He got angry, fell to the floor, kicked, screamed, cried, and stormed out of the room in tears. He went home, opened up his laptop and in a matter of two hours regurgitated every reason the HTS is evil and BAE Systems is the devil because it recruits these evil people and called it a book.Roberto - shame on you for degrading these brave men and women of your community for putting their lives on the line to go into combat. If you only had the guts to go downrange and do it yourself then I bet you wouldn't have to write a book about why these people are bad. You are a disgrace to your community and shame on you for insulting this nation's military.Do us all a favor - retire your laptop and stop writing. And yes, I read "Militarizing Culture: Essays on the Warfare State". It was crap too.That is all.