The Human Terrain System (HTS) was catapulted into existence in 2006 by the US military's urgent need for knowledge of the human dimension of the battlespace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its centrepiece was embedded groups of mixed military and civilian personnel, known as Human Terrain Teams (HTTs), whose mission was to conduct social science research and analysis and to advise military commanders about the local population. Bringing social science - and actual social scientists - to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was bold and challenging. Despite the controversy over HTS among scholars, there is little good, reliable source material written by those with experience of HTS or about the actual work carried out by teams in theatre. This volume goes beyond the anecdotes, snippets and blogs to provide a comprehensive, objective and detailed view of HTS. The contributors put the program in historical context, discuss the obstacles it faced, analyse its successes, and detail the work of the teams downrange. Most importantly, they capture some of the diverse lived experience of HTS scholars and practitioners drawn from an eclectic array of the social sciences.

The U.S. military can be thought of as a microcosm of American society, bringing in people from diverse backgrounds and history to defend one nation. Military leaders must address the same issues and concerns as those found in the civilian world, including exclusion, segregation, and discrimination. In some cases, the military has led the nation by creating policies of inclusion before civilian laws required them to do so. In other causes, the military has lagged behind the larger society. The goal of this book is to provide an overview of the ways in which diversity has been addressed in the military by providing information about particular forms of diversity including race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexuality. Subject matter experts provide their insights into the roles that each of these groups have played in the U.S. armed services as well as the laws, rules, and regulations regarding their participation. Ultimately, the authors utilize this information as a way to better understand military diversity and the unique ways that individuals incorporate the military into their sense identity.

The U.S. military can be thought of as a microcosm of American society, bringing in people from diverse backgrounds and history to defend one nation. Military leaders must address the same issues and concerns as those found in the civilian world, including exclusion, segregation, and discrimination. In some cases, the military has led the nation by creating policies of inclusion before civilian laws required them to do so. In other causes, the military has lagged behind the larger society. The goal of this book is to provide an overview of the ways in which diversity has been addressed in the military by providing information about particular forms of diversity including race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexuality. Subject matter experts provide their insights into the roles that each of these groups have played in the U.S. armed services as well as the laws, rules, and regulations regarding their participation. Ultimately, the authors utilize this information as a way to better understand military diversity and the unique ways that individuals incorporate the military into their sense identity.

This unique volume examines in detail two recent periods in military manpower history that have had a profound and lasting effect on military recruitment and selection policy. Project 100,000 and the ASVAB Misnorming brought hundreds of thousands of low-aptitude men into the military. While military officials recall these times with anything but affection, some social activists praise these periods as exemplary military social welfare ventures that could be resurrected today.

Janice Laurence and Peter Ramsberger examine the history behind Project 100,000 and the ASVAB Misnorming as well as their outcomes--both for the military and for the men brought into the service. The data do not support the claim that a tour of duty will ultimately lead to civilian success for the low-aptitude veterans. While some have fond feelings for the military and may have profited from the experience, many were found to be less well off economically and socially than their nonveteran counterparts.