- Counterterrorism and Privacy: The Changing Landscape of Surveillance and Civil Liberties", Michael Freeman. in Information Ethics: Privacy and Intellectual Privacy, eds., Graham Peace and Lee Freeman. Idea Group, 2004.
- Freedom or Security: The Consequences for Democracies Using Emergency Powers to Fight Terror, Michael Freeman. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.
Prospects and Implications (pdf) - Center for the Study of Terrorism and Irregular Warfare, October 1999.
and Netwars John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, 2000
(A RAND Publication)
- Fighting Barbarians (pdf) David Tucker, Parameters, 1998
- Information Age Terrorism (pdf)
, John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt, Michele Zanini. Current History, April 2000.
- What's New About The
New Terrorism and How Dangerous Is It? (pdf), David Tucker. Terrorism and Political Violence, 2001
- CORE Lab: Common Operational Research Environment
The CORE Lab has a threefold mission to support field operatives engaged in irregular warfare: We develop operators' knowledge, skills, and abilities in visual analytics.
Anthropology of Conflict
Anthropologists and the topic of conflict
Certain kinds of war and war fought by certain types of people(s)
have always received anthropological consideration, and the literature
on primitive warfare continues to grow. But with a few notable exceptions,
anthropologists have barely studied modern wars, and when modern
war is treated as a subject, it is the why behind the fighting and
the aftermath of it – not the how or the process – that
receives the most attention.
Military psychology, military sociology, and military history examine
national security issues from a number of angles, and a significant
portion of political science is dedicated to security studies. Anthropology,
in contrast, largely avoids studying those who wield force. As with
conflict in general, the effects of militaries and militarization
– on masculinity, gender roles, and civilian populations –
attract attention. But anthropological studies of the military are
There are two unfortunate consequences of this. First, little common
ground exists between anthropologists and those commissioned with
projecting force. Yet, increasingly force is being projected in
exactly those places anthropologists know best. Second, by refusing
to try to understand the military, anthropologists cede all discussions
about war’s past, present, and future to others. Often, erroneous
sweeping judgments are made by military historians. Without reading
or engaging them, anthropologists can’t correct them. At the
same time, it is primarily journalists who publish accounts of daily
military life. Not trained in anthropological techniques, there
is much that they miss, and even misread.
The Anthropology of Conflict (course description)
The focus of this course is cross-cultural conflict and violent
confrontation with a view to considering how anthropology might
be better used to study modern warfare and large-scale ethnic conflict.
Military historians, political scientists, and foreign policy pundits
increasingly refer to ‘culture’ and religion, identity
politics and ideology to help explain the new world disorder. But
are they using these social science concepts correctly?
One course aim is to re-think the salience of ethnic, cultural,
and civilizational divides. What can concepts like ‘culture’
(or ‘civilization’ and ‘ethnic group’) help
explain? Equally significantly, what might they conceal or miss
that a deeper look into social relations could better illuminate?
To what extent can we even understand other cultures and/or people’s
primordial attachments? Some anthropologists believe people are
more alike than unalike cross-culturally. Others disagree. Do cultures
have personalities? There was a major research thrust in this direction
during World War II. But no longer. Why? Finally, what we know (or
don’t know) about why people engage in warfare elsewhere may
be useful for re-thinking what we think we know about the likelihood
of conflict here at home.
- "Seeing the Enemy (or Not)", Anna Simons. In Anthony McIver (ed), Rethinking the Principles of War. Naval Institute Press, 2005.
- "The Evolution of the SOF Soldier", Anna Simons. In Bernd Horn (ed), Special Operations for Canada. McGill Queen, 2005.
Death of Conquest", Anna Simons, The National Interest,
in Combat Units: It's Still a Bad Idea", Anna Simons, Parameters,
Summer 2001. pp. 89-100.
Back to the Future" Anna Simons, Annual Anthropology Reviews,
Restructuring Special Operations Forces for Emerging Threats, David Tucker and Christopher J. Lamb. Strategic Forum, Jan 2006.
the Future of Conflict -John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, 2000
(A RAND Publication)
RMA and the Interagency: Knowledge and Speed vs. Ignorance and Sloth?
David Tucker, 2000 (Parameters)