Kaplan- The Revenge of Geography
Interesting discussion on geography, history, and war.
v/r
Mike
The Revenge of Geography: a primer on the coming phase on conflict
By Robert D. Kaplan Page
Foreign Policy
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...?story_id=4862
Quote:
People and ideas influence events, but geography largely determines them, now more than ever. To understand the coming struggles, it’s time to dust off the Victorian thinkers who knew the physical world best. A journalist who has covered the ends of the Earth offers a guide to the relief map—and a primer on the next phase of conflict.
When rapturous Germans tore down the Berlin Wall 20 years ago it symbolized far more than the overcoming of an arbitrary boundary. It began an intellectual cycle that saw all divisions, geographic and otherwise, as surmountable; that referred to “realism” and “pragmatism” only as pejoratives; and that invoked the humanism of Isaiah Berlin or the appeasement of Hitler at Munich to launch one international intervention after the next. In this way, the armed liberalism and the democracy-promoting neoconservatism of the 1990s shared the same universalist aspirations. But alas, when a fear of Munich leads to overreach the result is Vietnam—or in the current case, Iraq.
And thus began the rehabilitation of realism, and with it another intellectual cycle. “Realist” is now a mark of respect, “neocon” a term of derision. The Vietnam analogy has vanquished that of Munich. Thomas Hobbes, who extolled the moral benefits of fear and saw anarchy as the chief threat to society, has elbowed out Isaiah Berlin as the philosopher of the present cycle. The focus now is less on universal ideals than particular distinctions, from ethnicity to culture to religion. Those who pointed this out a decade ago were sneered at for being “fatalists” or “determinists.” Now they are applauded as “pragmatists.” And this is the key insight of the past two decades—that there are worse things in the world than extreme tyranny, and in Iraq we brought them about ourselves. I say this having supported the war.
So now, chastened, we have all become realists. Or so we believe. But realism is about more than merely opposing a war in Iraq that we know from hindsight turned out badly. Realism means recognizing that international relations are ruled by a sadder, more limited reality than the one governing domestic affairs. It means valuing order above freedom, for the latter becomes important only after the former has been established. It means focusing on what divides humanity rather than on what unites it, as the high priests of globalization would have it. In short, realism is about recognizing and embracing those forces beyond our control that constrain human action—culture, tradition, history, the bleaker tides of passion that lie just beneath the veneer of civilization. This poses what, for realists, is the central question in foreign affairs: Who can do what to whom? And of all the unsavory truths in which realism is rooted, the bluntest, most uncomfortable, and most deterministic of all is geography.
When you and I get together ....
25 or so years from now, over glasses of Kentuck bourbon - to consider this:
Quote:
from Ken
... be 20 - 30 years before that determination can be made with any degree of validity. My guess is that the verdict will be it turned out rather well.
we will see how all of our WAGs have turned out. And eventually, you and I will get together - unless we end up at different destinations. :D
The point is - the serious point - is what you have said more than once - impact of today's decisions cannot be measured with any accuracy tomorrow, a year from now, or even a decade. So, the third T in METT-TC also comes into play - and societies (especially those in more "primitive" countries) often change slowly, if at all, over decades.
Dunno what school but hopefully, he isn't in charge of anyone.
Obviously he had no imagination or sense of humor; bad traits in anyone. Really bad in leader of persons (see politically correct Ken... ;) )..
He should've congratulated you for brevity, applauded your tac-tickle knowledge -- then asked you to apply those factors to two or three scenarios. At least one of which could've entailed asking for your actions and orders after having been struck on the head by a 120mm Mortar Round (School solution: "Repeat after me, 'Our Father who art in heaven..."). :D
All true. As I said, he's usually a worthwhile read
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metrodorus
His message, as I understood it, was that this "revenge" is really just a reassertion in the minds of policymakers of the basic importance of geography.
The punditocracy always amuses me with their choices of lead lines.
Quote:
(By the way, I'm new here. This is my first post, as you can no doubt see. So far I'm enjoying the good conversations and thoughtful comments.)
Welcome aboard.
Even before the end of the Cold War, the problem was foreseen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Valin
During the Cold War (particularly towards the end) people were pointing to "Radical" Islam, the Salfists (whatever) as the next great threat...
We knew, long ago -- and did nothing.
Check the LINK. The Commission was initially a political thing and it got mixed reviews from such policy makers as Alexander Haig (who said it was a charade which almost certainly means it was good...) but it did come up with many things -- including hijacked airplanes as weapons. It actually predicted much that was to occur and even provide ideas and items for prevention and remediation. Unfortunately, it was ignored due to domestic political concerns. Thus, you're correct, not many paid attention...
Quote:
...Not many paid any attention to them, so my question is, What are we missing now?
I suppose you've seen this: LINK. It does a pretty good job, I think. Little light on South and Central America and on Trans National Gangs but overall, not bad.
