Kaplan- The Revenge of Geography

[J Wolfsberger]

With so much talk these days about globalization, interconnectedness, and the importance of ideology, I think Kaplan is just saying that we need to recognize we are still constrained by the concrete realities of good old-fashioned terrain. In a sense this is in agreement with your statement that "geography just is", but I think he finds it necessary to point this out because many policymakers are so concentrated on religion, political ideology, and other more abstract forces.

Actually, I think that he's pointing out the opposite. My take on the piece, at least the little I've had time to read, is that geography - terrain, climate, culture - are what will dominate our understanding and frame our approaches to problems. He seems to be asserting the same thing as for Ralph Peters' concept of "Wars of Blood and Faith."

BTW, welcome aboard.

[Steve the Planner]

John:

In college (Geography), I had to write a book report, so I found the smallest book in the library---one from 1930---The Geography of Conflict. The same ilk as those ref'd in The Revenge Article, but accurately identified all the problem areas----Balkans, Middle East, Indo-China, the Falklands, etc...

I think his point is really that we had a brief mental lapse where, somehow, conflict was going to be based on something else. But, it always comes back---time to put away the toys and get back to the basics.

In Iraq, I was very frustrated by the lack of adequate administrative and political geography, and believe that that gap contributed to our problems their. In 2008 (not 2003), nobody knew where the provinces, qaddas and nahias were, or why that should matter. People assume that because we have superb visibility and physical mapping and imagery, that we understand what things on the ground mean.

In 2008, it took a lot of oar pulling by a lot of people to get a de-classified and properly licensed set of GIS shapefiles and imagery in the hands of Iraqi ministries and provincial technocrats so they could start understanding and planning their own country. Few people understood how important that effort was---but, fortunately, we found angels in the right places.

In 2008, the Iraqis appointed a Kirkuk committee, and their first question was: which Kirkuk are we supposed to study? Pre-1976, Kirkuk included Diyala (north of the River), Tuz Khormatu (now a province of Salah ad Din), two districts from current Erbil, and well into Sulimaniya.

There was so much change for so many reasons in the last 20 years in Iraqi provincial boundaries, that it was rare to find a ministerial or provincial official with an accurate map of provinces in 2008. Few Americans understood it. Amidst the confusion, many things went wrong, or became confounded.

Multiply the basic boundary confusion by the complex historical and cultural issues played out over Kirkuk, Diyala, etc..., and it was easy to understand how dense and challenging a permanent resolution might be. Khanakin, for example, lies near a mountain gap for a major route of The Silk Road; the fighting, and wash of history, over that place goes back into unwritten history.

As the cartographic/demographic expert for the Kirkuk issue, I would always find a US person stumbling in to ask where "the Green Line" was, as if they were back home and trying to by an ADC Map at the 7-11. Instead, I had maps for about six different prospective green lines, and theories to support, perhaps, three more. That was the problem----it was a BOUNDARY dispute.

Fortunately, the military lives and dies by geography, and the people and activities that take place thereon, so it never took long to explain the problem. But try explaining that to non-military folks and you could tell that their eyes glazed over. They just did not understand basic geography, or how it drove the world and policy; I think the article was driving at the non-military/non-geographers whose abilities to direct and effect real-world policy is extremely limited by their lack of awareness...

I could write a book on the examples to support it, but it would be embarrassing to too many people.

To me, the article was very important to folks who don't get it, and directly ties to another important book of last year on cadestral (property lines) systems.

Steve

[J Wolfsberger]

Steve,

We're in complete agreement, especially your observation about it being "time to put away the toys and get back to the basics." I think that was the thrust of Kaplan's article, and the point of Peters' book as well.

[slapout9]

I have been busy lately but I love this discussion and I will post some more later. But to start does anybody know why Paul Krugman (the economist writer for NY Times) won the Nobel prize. It was for his paper on the study of how location (geography) controls economic destiny

[jkm_101_fso]

In 2008, the Iraqis appointed a Kirkuk committee, and their first question was: which Kirkuk are we supposed to study? Pre-1976, Kirkuk included Diyala (north of the River), Tuz Khormatu (now a province of Salah ad Din), two districts from current Erbil, and well into Sulimaniya.

Left Tuz in 2006 and the effort was to pull them into Kirkuk (Tamim). I can assure you that the Kurdish foothold has become significant in Tuz (maybe it already was). The Arabs and Turkomen in the Tuz area seemed to be on board with the Kurdish effort (as if they had a choice). Pesh elements were increasing in number and being significantly empowered (by who I won't say...but I think you get the jist).

As the cartographic/demographic expert for the Kirkuk issue, I would always find a US person stumbling in to ask where "the Green Line" was, as if they were back home and trying to by an ADC Map at the 7-11. Instead, I had maps for about six different prospective green lines, and theories to support, perhaps, three more. That was the problem----it was a BOUNDARY dispute.

Agreed. I've asked many Kurdish leaders from the Tuz AO to "draw the Green line" on a map. As you can imagine, the boundaries varied (usually dependent on which Kurdish political faction they belong to). I've seen the Green Line end just west of Tuz, and I've seen it drawn past the Jabal Hamrins toward Tikrit.

I didn't see the "de-Arabization" effort in the Tuz area, because significant Arab hamlets still existed and probably weren't going away. As I mentioned, I think the general mindset of the Arab in the Tuz area was to accept the Kurdish takeover and try not to get in their way. For example, our 1st IA BN CDR was a Sunni and former Regime officer; but also a dues-paying and card-carrying member of the PUK, with a vacation home in Irbil to boot.

The human terrain didn't match up with the physical geography in Tuz area, which I think hindered, but won't stop the eventual outcome (Kurdish rule). But I believe it will be the outcome eventually. Tuz is one of those places where the Green Line Boundary could be hotly debated; but isn't significant enough for anyone in Baghdad to care. Tuz was certainly neglected by the Saladin provincial Govt; which would lead one to believe they have also accepted the Kurdish takeover.

[Steve the Planner]

jkm:

If you take Tuz out of context, there is one result, but put it in the context of the pre-1976 boundaries, and Tuz is logically centered between Kirkuk and the Diyala River (the old boundary).

I attached a cropped version of a map from Global Sec that's pretty accurate. Does that version of Kirkuk make any sense? It did for a very long period of time, and that's why a lot of Iraqis were used to it, and had arranged themselves accordingly.

Geography?

Steve

PS- I always thought it was hysterical that US maps showed Tuz District as extending below the Hamrin into Ad Dawr. Apparently that was an NGA typo that just kept getting repeated over and over. Why should that matter?