With regards to Hayden's article in the Nation, "Harvard's Humanitarian Hawks":Why can't some academes seem to get past this concept that the military's counter-insurgency operations are "inherently secretive, classified and deliberately deceptive programs designed ultimately to kill people?" Comments like this demonstrate severe ignorance and skewer the reality. Specifically, that the people the counter-insurgency operations are designed to neurtralize (capture or yes kill) are those who are actively seeking to kill everyone else!
Hayden makes the jump from this biased, incomplete interpretation to ask the question as to whether Harvard should be involved in something that "runs counter to the historic freedom of university life." What a ridiculous statement. Though he may not have intended it, he is essentially comparing the sociopolitical environment of war-torn Iraq to that of Harvard Yard!! This gentleman is so high up the Ivory Tower he can't see the ground. While the leaders and citizens of Harvard Yard have the luxury of legal contstitutional protections such as individual human rights, habeas corpus, the right to bear arms, and so on thanks to a stable system of law and order that is well protected by the governments of the city of cambridge, the commonwealth of massachusetts, and the great United States, the citizens of Iraq and US troops are a bit busy attempting to contain and eliminate an insurgency that is trying to kill everyone. Obviously every attempt to protect and maintain human rights while doing so should be made, and this I suspect is why GEN Petreus brought Harvard on board.
Hayden is living in a theoretical world where Human rights exist in a vacuum, and may be applied as such. Hayden wants Harvard to work towards human rights, but what? work against the US military? Or does he simply want Harvard to act with complete neutrality, perhaps help both the insurgency and the US troops move towards human rights? If this is the case, I'd encourage him to go and engage the insurgency, just to see how interested they are in Harvard's help...he would likely not get two words in before his head was covered with a pillow case and he was shoved in front of a camera as a hostage. He seems afraid to pick a side. Such an experience might make it easier for him.
And this strange fear about the militirization of the academy is beyond me. If the center wants to have any impact, it has to engage those who have the greatest impact on human rights. I don't understand it - he should be happy the military is attempting to engage the Harvard center and improve human rights conditions. I suspect it has to do with his own suspicious attitude towards the military and the belief that nothing good can come from the military. His bias towards this end drips off of his essay like sweat from an apocrine gland.
