The social sciences and the state

I have been reading lately about the use of the social sciences in the wars of the Middle East. The notion of academics entering the fray has caused some unease amongst many fields of human study, but particularly amongst the anthropological set. The notion of scientists being used to collect information in any capacity during conflict has a less than wholesome feel to it.
This debate ultimately raises the question; when is it research and when is it propaganda? An interesting historical example of crossing this line is contained in the story of the Ahnenerbe Forschungs und Lehrgemeinschaft known also as the Ancestral Heritage Research and Teaching Society. A dream project of Heinrich Himmler, the Ahnenerbe's function was to provide legitimacy to the claims of Aryan racial superiority. (There is a fascinating documentary from Channel 4 in the UK called "Hitler's Search for the Holy Grail") Aryan philosophy dictated racial purity. This purity needed to have legitimacy attached to it through archaeological and anthropological proof. This proof tapped directly into the German psyche, namely the recovery of a national identity and power in the wake of the humiliation of World War I.
How is it possible to allow the study of culture and the human condition while at the same time avoiding the pitfalls of using such studies to justify the horrors of war? On one hand the fear of appropriation by interests only looking to promote their specific agendas is a legitimate one. One need only look at the Ahnenerbe to see how this could happen. On the other hand, by turning our collective backs the use of the social sciences for anything other than the pure study of the human condition we fall prey to living in an academic vacuum, fulfilling the notion that the social sciences are indulgences that do nothing for society as a whole.

I feel that perhaps some middle ground is possible. This middle ground would come at a cost to both sides of the debate however. For the social sciences, there would be a loss of some of the hard fought legitimacy gained in the past. The perception will be that knowledge for knowledge sake will be trumped by the exploitation of that knowledge. In other words we will become state/corporate shills for ideas. However I feel this is the greatest potential of the social sciences. In the film titled "The Corporation" a psychological profile was developed by looking at the corporation as a living entity as opposed to an organization. Ultimately, the corporation's diagnosis is a sociopath. Could the use of the social sciences as a "guiding hand" prevent this diagnosis?

In loosing some of this purity, the social sciences can gain real voice in many of the less than ethical human endeavours such as conflict. The use of anthropologists in combat zones can be perceived as a cultural reaching out by the blind giant known as the U.S. military. Should this not be a part of our mission as academics interested in the understanding of the human condition? The externalities of such a give and take should be explored more thoroughly before they are dismissed out of hand by both sides of such a debate.