Thank you for taking the time to post this!
What do you see as a better use of social scientists in these conflicts, counter-insurgencies, etc. ?
No problem. I'm bored and stuck on a FOB for a few days.
I'd say the HTS
concept isn't too far off the mark. It's the execution that fails miserably. And that organization is emphatically
not going to improve, because it is in a quality death spiral: the best people leave, the worst people stay -- and the worst people are mostly recruited at the top, with no promotion chances for those at the bottom because of a nod-to-my-retiree-friends requirement that Team Leaders be of a certain retired rank (I've never met a battlespace owner who cared about the Team Leader's former rank except in a negative way, because so many are arrogant/defensive about it*). So, once again, forget about HTS. Others and I believed we could change the organization from the inside. It won't happen. Nor will a decent alternative spring up anytime soon (unless you're willing to throw your hat in with civilian intelligence agencies -- not a bad job choice at all, if they ever do decide to move away from drone strikes and more towards people skills again).
In terms of better use of social scientists, then, I'd say stick with academia, but focus your research away from the esoteric and more towards the relevant. There are a lot of little "human terrain" organizations out there now, staffed by contractors, usually overpaid and under qualified. I can't think of a single useful article I've read on Afghanistan written by these people. What I do see endlessly cited are books and articles by serious academics and analysts such as Afghan Analysts Network. These independent guys have a far, far deeper and useful understanding of Afghanistan, and their products are far more useful to commanders (kind of ironic, right?).
I should also add that a lot of the need for "understanding cultures" in the military is actually based on the inability to understand people, period, or rather our (the military's) unwillingness to obey the Golden Rule. So much of what we do in Afghanistan to anger the local population would just as much anger any American, European or Japanese person. Yet, because we don't want to change our behavior
too much, we look for social scientists to validate what we do by finding justifications/"loopholes" in the local culture that somehow allow us to continue raiding houses at night without pissing people off. So, do keep that in mind if you truly want to influence what the military does.
So, the first thing I'd suggest is stay the hell away from Afghanistan. We're at the tail end of this war, and it's become mostly about making a quick last buck for contractors. Especially "Big Army" is driven by a lot of pressures that make it very hard for commanders to make truly reasonable decisions. Right now, it's all about short-term results due to political timelines. Social science just doesn't fit into that -- for many, this isn't as much a war as an industry.
Wait until about 2020 for the military system to rearrange itself (yep, as in all social science, there are never quick and easy routes; nor should there be).
In the meantime, if you're not willing to consider active involvement in foreign affairs through military service/State Department/Peace Corps/NGO work, etc, focus on rigorous scholarship.
This could be internally focused -- for example, if you're interested in military psychology, work on projects with members of Div 19 of the APA. If you're looking at broader conflict analysis, there are plenty of highly reputable academic departments that specialize in this, especially on the East Coast.
If you're looking to become a Subject Matter Expert on the conflict zones of tomorrow, good luck. Pick one country or region, but remember that there's a roll of the dice involved -- on September 10, 2001, we didn't know we'd be invading Afghanistan. Also remember that a lot of the countries at the top of our list, e.g. Yemen, are now practically inaccessible to academics. And without years of on-the-ground experience, you'll be a hollow "expert". That's why I'd recommend some of the smaller West African countries and other places that are more permissible, but still are at risk of instability without attracting too much scholarship from lots of academics. But, to be frank, do you really want to study a country just in case you can get rich and famous off of it going to hell?
So, all in all, I'd recommend considering either a few years in practice, before returning to academia, or immediately pursing a traditional academic career at a university or think tank. Please, please, please ignore all the pseudo-academic, high-paying contractor-staffed places that have sprung up for second-rate academics to feed the military a load of drivel about conflict, counterinsurgencies and foreign cultures. Besides, many of these guys won't last past the military and Afghan drawdown.
As a litmus test to validate what I just argued, I suggest you look at the backgrounds of the people who have been the widest-read and listened-to on conflict in the past ten years. People like John Nagl and David Kilcullen within the military. And everyone from David Ucko, to Antonio Giustozzi to Thomas Barfield on the academic side. These guys tended to be first-class academics or soldiers first and, if they ever did work for the government in an academic capacity, contractors later on.
Then, go on linkedin and google to find the backgrounds of social scientists who work for HTS and similar. Look for relevant scholarship, and even relevant degrees and dissertations. You'll find very little. In fact, I can't find any. Now, those guys might say, "oh, I do great research, but it's classified". That's horse****. HTS has been trying for years to get proper papers into academic publications in order to prove that it has actual quality and purpose. They still can't find any. That's all you need to know right there.
The bottom line is that the "bandwagoners" are trying to insert themselves into the defense world first, and then may or may not come up with some relevant research. The truly influential people focused on rigorous scholarship first and foremost, and then some of them ended up working for the military in an academic capacity.
My last tip would be to look at the military's academic institutions, from West Point to the Naval Postgraduate School. These are genuine academic institutions that foster genuine research. As a rule, if you're trying to spot them, they have existed far longer than since 2001. Yes, they employ some dubious "experts" at time, but I expect that to die down a little as Afghanistan/Iraq winds down and these institutions stop grasping for "anyone" who might have relevant knowledge. If you want a true intersection of military/conflict and social science, then look for employment there. As to how you get there? Serious scholarship and a degree from a well-regarded university. There are no shortcuts.
*Here's how bad HTS is at social science: they don't realize that kinship is based on a hierarchy of shared experiences, rather than rank. A battalion commander will much more likely see eye-to-eye with a Sergeant with combat experience, than a retired Lieutenant Colonel/Team Leader who's never seen combat.
