{"id":131981,"date":"2019-04-22T12:01:52","date_gmt":"2019-04-22T11:01:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=131981"},"modified":"2019-04-21T11:39:56","modified_gmt":"2019-04-21T10:39:56","slug":"is-the-american-psychological-association-addicted-to-militarism-and-war","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2019\/04\/is-the-american-psychological-association-addicted-to-militarism-and-war\/","title":{"rendered":"Is the American Psychological Association Addicted to Militarism and War?"},"content":{"rendered":"

19 Apr 2019 – <\/em>When hijacked planes hit their targets on the morning of September 11, 2001, the American Psychological Association (APA) sprang into action. Within hours, through its disaster response network the APA mobilized expert practitioners and worked with the American Red Cross to provide psychological support to families of the victims and to rescue workers. The APA\u2019s public affairs office moved quickly as well to assist the public\u2014and especially families, children, and schools\u2014by developing and disseminating\u00a0materials<\/a>\u00a0that provided psychological guidance about coping with fear and trauma.<\/p>\n

But with comparable urgency, the APA also ensured that the Bush Administration would view the association as a valued partner in the military and intelligence operations central to the new \u201cwar on terror.\u201d\u00a0Within days, the APA\u2019s science directorate called upon research psychologists to identify how psychological science might contribute to counter-terrorism initiatives. Shortly thereafter, a newly established APA\u00a0subcommittee on psychology\u2019s response to terrorism\u00a0directed<\/a>\u00a0its attention to \u201coffering psychologists\u2019 expertise to decision-makers in the military, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of State and related agencies\u201d and to \u201cinventorying members\u2019 expertise and asking government psychologists how agencies could put that expertise to use.\u201d<\/p>\n

These two responses are clearly very different from each other. The first\u2014providing expert, research-informed psychological assistance to a grieving and traumatized nation\u2014captures the stated\u00a0mission<\/a>\u00a0of the APA quite well: \u201cadvancing psychology to benefit society and improve people\u2019s lives.\u201d The second\u2014offering zealous support to the military-intelligence establishment after the White House had\u00a0promised<\/a>\u00a0a \u201ccrusade\u201d in which adversaries would face the \u201cfull wrath\u201d of the United States and in which our operatives would \u201cspend time in the shadows\u201d working \u201cthe dark side\u201d and using \u201cany means at our disposal\u201d\u2014certainly does\u00a0not.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>Yet in various forms, this troubling dichotomy has appeared again and again in the years since the 9\/11 attacks. On the one hand, at times the APA has taken public stands on key perils and injustices associated with issues such as\u00a0climate change<\/a>, poverty<\/a>,\u00a0racism<\/a>,\u00a0gun violence<\/a>,\u00a0consumerism<\/a>, and\u00a0immigration<\/a>. But when the focus shifts to conquering the\u00a0third<\/a>\u00a0of Martin Luther King\u2019s \u201cgiant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism,\u201d the APA turns silent, or worse. With large segments of the American public so readily and regularly enticed by the bipartisan glorification of war and all things military, the world\u2019s largest association of psychologists could play an important moderating and cautionary role. Unfortunately, the APA instead often acts like the \u201cimpaired professional\u201d who is\u00a0<\/strong>unable (or unwilling) to intervene because they too suffer from the same addiction. Here are several examples.<\/p>\n

Torture<\/strong><\/p>\n

The arena that has received the most attention is the disturbing\u00a0involvement<\/a>\u00a0of psychologists\u2014including\u00a0members<\/a>\u00a0of the APA\u2014in the government-authorized torture and abuse of \u201cwar on terror\u201d detainees. As revelations of this wrongdoing and abandonment of professional ethics emerged and then spread well over a decade ago, for years the APA\u2019s primary responses were a combination of stonewalling, denials, and attacks against critics. The APA\u2019s ethics office director\u00a0insisted<\/a>\u00a0that\u00a0psychologists knew not to participate in activities that harmed detainees, and an APA president\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0that those who raised concerns were merely \u201copportunistic commentators masquerading as scholars.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2005, facing growing outrage, the APA created a controversial task force to examine psychological ethics in national security settings (PENS<\/a>). Stacked with representatives from the military-intelligence establishment, the task force met for three days and, unsurprisingly, asserted that psychologists helped to keep detention and interrogation operations\u00a0\u201csafe, legal, ethical, and effective\u201d<\/a>\u2014despite multiple\u00a0accounts<\/a>\u00a0that\u00a0health professionals, including psychologists, were among the perpetrators of detainee mistreatment.\u00a0The APA board of directors then quickly approved the PENS report in an \u201cemergency\u201d vote, bypassing the association\u2019s full governing body.<\/p>\n

Finally, in 2015, following a months-long investigation based on analysis of over 50,000 documents and 150 interviews, an\u00a0independent report<\/a>\u00a0authorized by the APA presented extensive evidence of secret\u00a0collaboration\u2013conducted over a period of years\u2014between APA leaders and Department of Defense officials. These secret efforts were apparently aimed at ensuring that the APA\u2019s ethics policies would not constrain interrogation-related activities, and that psychologists would remain in operational roles at\u00a0Guant\u00e1namo\u00a0Bay and other U.S. overseas detention centers. The report led to a few much-needed\u00a0reforms<\/a>, but it also produced a backlash from some military psychologists who, along with their supporters, responded with defamation lawsuits, a formal ethics\u00a0complaint<\/a>\u00a0and more threats of the same, and calls for public suppression of the report itself. Responding to an\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0by this author, the APA\u2019s CEO again reached for old falsehoods, portraying the profession\u2019s dark-side participation as limited to the actions of \u201ctwo rogue psychologists\u201d involved in the CIA\u2019s torture program.<\/p>\n

Terrorism<\/strong><\/p>\n

As the U.S. propaganda-driven and illegal invasion of Iraq was unfolding in 2003, a former APA president offered a polarizing\u00a0warning<\/a>: \u201cThe civilized world is at war with Jihad Islamic terrorism. It takes a bomb in the office of some academics to make them realize that their most basic values are now threatened.\u201d During that same period, the APA\u2019s leadership authorized an expert\u00a0task force<\/a>\u00a0to produce a report examining the psychological effects on the American public of government efforts to prevent terrorism. According to the task force chair, members\u00a0recommended<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cpsychologists become involved in the development, implementation and evaluations of new programs about terrorism and efforts to prevent it,\u201d and that they do so by using \u201cknowledge about enemy images, stereotyping of other groups, and the processes of groupthink to develop guidelines and recommendations to help national, state, and local leaders tailor their public communications about terrorism so that their messages minimize known deleterious effects upon the populace.\u201d<\/p>\n

The task force also expressed concern about the weaponization of fear by the Bush Administration in its rhetoric about the \u201cwar on terror,\u201d which emphasized ideas about \u201cus versus them,\u201d the importance of loyalty to a central authority, and the belief that our cultural norms are universal truths. \u00a0 One task force member noted that the government\u2019s response could prove more dangerous than the terrorists themselves.\u00a0These conclusions were met with alarm by the APA\u2019s senior staff, who privately\u00a0worried<\/a>\u00a0that publicizing the report could significantly damage the APA\u2019s public image, and likely cause friction with the White House. The final report was quashed. A few years later, it was elaborated and published as a\u00a0book<\/a>. The task force chair was reportedly advised by the APA\u2019s legal counsel that there should be no suggestion that the association endorsed the book in any manner.<\/p>\n

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2011, the APA devoted an entire\u00a0special issue<\/a>\u00a0of its flagship journal, the\u00a0American Psychologist<\/em>, to a series of uncritical articles waxing enthusiastic about the U.S. Army\u2019s new Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) program. Based on a \u201cpositive psychology\u201d framework, CSF was developed under the guidance of psychologists, and all of the journal\u2019s 13 articles were written by individuals involved in designing and implementing the resilience program. The avowed\u00a0goals<\/a>\u00a0of CSF were to \u201cenhance soldiers\u2019 ability to handle adversity, prevent depression and anxiety, prevent PTSD, and enhance overall well-being and performance.\u201d These may be worthy aspirations, but CSF quickly became\u00a0mandatory<\/em>\u00a0for one million soldiers\u00a0without<\/em>\u00a0pilot testing or compelling evidence that it could achieve these objectives. Not surprisingly,\u00a0subsequent\u00a0analyses<\/a>, including those conducted by authoritative scientific\u00a0institutions<\/a>, have shown that CSF falls well short of its stated goals.<\/p>\n

This APA special journal issue offered little discussion of conceptual challenges or ethical considerations, nor did it provide any forum for independent critical or cautionary voices. In sum, the APA\u2019s stance toward CSF was little more than cheerleading for an untested military research project\u2014one with enormous ramifications\u2014about which many crucial questions should have been asked. For example, might the program be harmful for some soldiers, perhaps by undermining previously learned successful coping strategies? Or, by fortifying perseverance in the face of adversity, might CSF lead soldiers to engage in actions\u2014including harm to civilians\u2014that later cause deep regret and\u00a0moral injury<\/a>, thereby increasing the potential for PTSD and other post-combat psychological difficulties? Or, might this resilience program lead some to deny, for a time at least, the adverse effects of their traumatic experiences, heightening the likelihood of premature redeployment to battle zones with further risk of serious disability?<\/p>\n

The APA\u2019s promotion of the flawed CSF program is yet further evidence of the organization\u2019s failure to adequately confront the often-staggering consequences that flow from uncritical support of our country\u2019s military ambitions, all too frequently yoked to the\u00a0interests<\/a>\u00a0of mega-corporations and their largest shareholders. \u201cBlind patriotism\u201d\u2014a topic psychologists have\u00a0studied<\/a>\u2014serves to advance policies, framed as \u201cnational security\u201d endeavors, that inevitably endanger the well-being of our own soldiers, combatants on the other side, and many innocent civilians\u2014all while squandering precious resources.<\/p>\n

Drone Warfare<\/strong><\/p>\n

With names like the Predator and the Reaper, weaponized drones used by the U.S. military and the CIA should\u00a0raise<\/a>\u00a0significant concerns for the profession of psychology. A detailed multi-university\u00a0report<\/a>examining U.S. drone policy found that \u201cTheir presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.\u201d Similarly, the director of the human rights organization Reprieve has\u00a0described<\/a>the use of these drones as\u00a0\u201ca form of psychological torture and collective punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n

These realities raise compelling questions about the ethics of psychologists\u2019 involvement in such operations. In 2013, members of the APA\u2019s peace psychology division (including the author) wrote to the APA\u2019s ethics office requesting guidance as to whether, according to the ethics code, it is permissible for a psychologist to be involved in the operation of a weaponized drone; to work as an intelligence\u00a0consultant in the targeting of drone strikes; to participate in programs designed to select drone operators\u00a0or train them to overcome the natural psychological aversion to killing other people; or to assist in promoting public support for the use of these drones by misrepresenting evidence of the harm caused by such attacks. Sadly, but perhaps predictably, this request was never answered by the APA\u2019s ethics office.<\/p>\n

It is difficult to obtain detailed information about the ways in which psychologists may be participating in drone-related operations, especially when that work is classified. But we do know that psychologists are conducting research with drone pilots. One area involves figuring out which skills and attributes make for a top-notch pilot. Some of this research\u00a0examines<\/a>\u00a0how a pilot\u2019s belief\u00a0system and \u201cmoral motivation\u201d\u00a0may\u00a0negatively<\/em>\u00a0affect their performance when it comes to the deployment of weapons. Another research area apparently involves\u00a0looking at how to reduce the high levels of stress, PTSD, depression, and substance abuse among drone operators. According to one\u00a0account<\/a>, the development of a Siri-like user interface aims to anthropomorphize the drone\u2014so that the pilot feels less responsible for the death and destruction wrought.\u00a0Seemingly\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0under investigation is whether wars will become more likely and more frequent as we become enthralled with the prospect of discomfort-free and risk-free killing from afar.<\/p>\n

The Defense Budget<\/strong><\/p>\n

In an address shortly after becoming U.S. president in 1953, General Dwight D. Eisenhower\u00a0said<\/a>, \u201cEvery gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.\u201d Nevertheless, there is near unanimous bipartisan support in Congress for our ever-growing defense budget\u2014a budget now\u00a0exceeding<\/a>\u00a0that of the next seven largest countries combined. The most direct\u00a0beneficiaries<\/a>\u00a0of this outsized spending are, regrettably, often giant defense contractors and weapons builders. The United States is also the\u00a0largest<\/a>international arms seller\u2014with ongoing efforts to promote even bigger markets that include countries ruled by ruthless autocrats. But none of this seems to garner meaningful comment from the APA, even though psychology offers valuable insights into the potentially destructive consequences of individual and collective choices driven by fear, greed, conformity, or blind patriotism.<\/p>\n

When the federal budget is under discussion in Washington, DC, at times the APA does indeed\u00a0warn<\/a>\u00a0against cuts to key domestic programs, including those that involve practice opportunities for psychologists. But the association rarely if ever speaks out against the enormous financial drain that is today\u2019s military-intelligence establishment. In fact, when the\u00a0APA gives testimony before defense appropriations committees, it routinely calls for\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0funding for psychological research with military applications. Moreover, the APA members selected to argue this case are usually high-level staffers at the Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO), a defense contractor first\u00a0established<\/a>\u00a0decades ago to develop \u201cpsychological warfare\u201d techniques. HumRRO\u2019s\u00a0connections<\/a>\u00a0with the APA are long, deep, and arguably problematic. The company has received tens of millions of defense dollars, and its research projects have included\u00a0work<\/a>\u00a0on developing \u201coverwhelmingly lethal\u201d combat systems.<\/p>\n

Professional Ethics<\/strong><\/p>\n

Leaders of the APA\u2019s military psychology\u00a0division<\/a>\u00a0have been among the most outspoken proponents of modifying our understanding of the profession\u2019s ethics. Some of them have\u00a0participated<\/a>\u00a0in the harsh detention and interrogation operations at Guant\u00e1namo.\u00a0Others have\u00a0argued<\/a>\u00a0that the U.S. government is the psychologist\u2019s primary client in military contexts, and that society\u2019s interests\u2014as determined by the government\u2014should override other professional ethical considerations for psychologists. And another military psychologist has\u00a0recommended<\/a>\u00a0that psychotherapy\u00a0techniques be used to train soldiers in \u201cadaptive killing\u201d\u2014to help them overcome the natural aversion to taking another life, and the tendency to feel guilty after doing so. These same interests were also behind recent\u00a0efforts<\/a>\u00a0to change an APA policy that currently restricts psychologists from working at\u00a0Guant\u00e1namo\u00a0and other U.S. detention facilities that violate international law. Although that resolution was soundly defeated by the association\u2019s governing body, the APA\u2019s president nevertheless\u00a0sent<\/a>\u00a0a follow-up letter assuring the Department of Defense that the prohibition was merely \u201caspirational\u201d and not enforceable.<\/p>\n

Many of these issues reflect a worrisome and growing trend toward what this author and colleagues have\u00a0called<\/a>\u00a0\u201cadversarial operational psychology.\u201d This area of practice diverges from the profession\u2019s traditional do-no-harm ethical principles in three ways: psychologists engage in military-intelligence activities where individuals or groups are targeted for harm; these targets have not provided their voluntary informed consent; and these psychologists are shielded from professional ethical oversight by a maze of classified projects and security clearances. To be clear,\u00a0most psychologists whose work supports the U.S. military and other defense-related agencies do not serve in these roles. But ongoing efforts to build and promote this specialization reflect the further weaponization of psychology and can jeopardize the public\u2019s trust in the profession. At the same time, they also pose a threat to a psychological science that depends upon transparency, data sharing, and peer review.<\/p>\n

Breaking Free from the Addiction<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are undoubtedly multiple reasons why the APA seems to lose its scientific rudder, moral compass, and independent voice in the military-intelligence arena, where violence, domination, and oppression are too often the preferred tools of U.S. foreign policy. Perhaps it is in part because the Department of Defense is a valued employer of psychologists, a significant funder of psychological research, and a key source of internships for graduate students in clinical psychology. As well, in influential circles strong connections with the Pentagon can bring an organization considerable stature and a proverbial \u201cseat at the table\u201d for policy deliberations with national and international ramifications. And we should not overlook the reality that, when couched as \u201cpatriotism,\u201d calls to action\u2014and obedience\u2014are never easy to resist for individuals or groups. After all, that is why they have been standard fare for demagogues across time and place.<\/p>\n

But what does the mission of \u201cadvancing psychology to benefit society and improve people\u2019s lives\u201d truly mean if the APA refuses to counter fearmongering propaganda, the manipulative nurturing of enemy images, and the misuse of military might? The consequences of our failure to rein in these forces are stark: nearly 800 overseas military bases; massive weapons expenditures that hinder urgent domestic spending needs; assertions of exceptionalism that encourage a disturbing disregard for the lives and suffering of non-Americans; and unencumbered power for narrow interests that may find the threat and spoils of war far more profitable than diplomatic success or lasting peace.<\/p>\n

What would \u201cbreaking free\u201d look like for the APA? Here are several examples. The APA can advocate for an end to the indefinite detention of Guant\u00e1namo detainees and for closure of that infamous facility, where imprisonment violates\u00a0international law<\/a>\u00a0and has caused severe\u00a0psychological harm<\/a>. The APA can help the public better understand that the psychology fostering exaggerated fears of terrorism can also lead to unscientific\u00a0programs<\/a>\u00a0that jeopardize civil liberties\u2014especially for those who are already most vulnerable to prejudice and stereotyping.\u00a0The APA can raise alarm about psychological strategies behind today\u2019s military\u00a0recruitment<\/a>\u00a0efforts, which increasingly target younger teens and those whose\u00a0financial and educational circumstances make them especially susceptible to false assurances or misrepresentations. The APA can call for reductions in our massive and burgeoning military budget that chokes off funding for domestic\u00a0programs<\/a>\u2014Medicare, Medicaid, affordable housing, public transportation, student aid\u2014that are essential contributors to our nation\u2019s psychological health. And the APA can implement stronger internal policies to ensure that its own deliberations are not\u00a0unduly influenced<\/a>\u00a0by those who benefit from financial ties to the military-intelligence establishment.<\/p>\n

Urging these and related changes at the APA does not diminish appreciation for the valuable work of psychologists\u2014and other health professionals\u2014who care for our soldiers and veterans. The stresses of military service are daunting, ranging from lengthy family dislocations to combat experiences that involve exposure to unspeakable brutality and the risk of injury and death. Even after returning home from the battlefield, heightened dangers of PTSD, substance use, and suicide\u00a0remain.\u00a0Certainly, those who serve deserve our abiding respect and compassionate support. But we do everyone a disservice when we fail to question and challenge a system and a culture that so readily place them\u2014and others\u2014in harm\u2019s way. It is time for the APA and its members to decide whether the world\u2019s largest psychological association is ready to overcome its \u201caddiction\u201d and help lead us forward.<\/p>\n

_______________________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/em>Roy Eidelson is a member of the TRANSCEND Network<\/a> and was a member of the American Psychological Association for over 25 years, prior to his resignation. He is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting<\/a>, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility<\/a>, associate director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at Bryn Mawr College, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology<\/a>. Roy can be reached at reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

19 Apr 2019 – On the morning of September 11, 2001, the APA sprang into action and worked with the American Red Cross to provide psychological support to families of the victims and to rescue workers. The APA also ensured that the Bush Administration would view the association as a valued partner in the military and intelligence operations central to the new \u201cwar on terror.\u201d These two responses are clearly very different from each other.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":110813,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[1000,120,487,291,91,109,287,281,70,126,118],"class_list":["post-131981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members","tag-apa","tag-conflict","tag-human-rights","tag-military","tag-nato","tag-politics","tag-power","tag-psychology","tag-usa","tag-violence","tag-war"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131981\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/110813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}