Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Kaplan- The Revenge of Geography

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default 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


    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.

  2. #2
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Very little of what Kaplan's writing is especially new. What he's expressing is what happened when history went "post-modern" and started cross-pollinating with revisionist political science and sociology. It's an interesting piece just the same. Thanks for linking to it!
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  3. #3
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default The Social Contract

    I'm trying to tie it all together. What he said sent me back to the drawing board. Here's where I'm at right now- It'll probably change tomorrow.

    The social contract

    Everything in life is but a contract. It starts with the individual.

    First, you have to provide yourself full disclosure, look in the mirror, determine your world, your norms, values, and beliefs. If you cannot be honest with yourself, if you cannot follow the provisions of your own internal contract, then you cannot hope to completely fill any obligations to others.

    Sometimes, external events deeply affect and challenge that contract. Sociologists call it anomie. I observed it first hand in Zaganiyah. Sometimes, trauma takes us off-center, and we are left far outside our natural homeostatic point. Time becomes relative; earth, moon, and sky shift rapidly as the great sadness attempts to creep in. At this point, many become stuck. Some hurt their neighbors. Some combust in flames of martyrdom just trying to end it all. Fear and greed overcome.

    Others take a knee and regain and regain composure.

    In Proverbs, the poet suggested that "a friend loves at all times." We are NOT primarily put on this earth to see through one another, but to see each other through. When a friend goes down, don't leave him wounded in the trail. If he is weak, carry him through for as long as it takes. Robert E. Lee once said, "A good commander loves his soldiers, but he is also willing to let the thing he loves die in order to accomplish the mission." Both are right as the terms of the contract adjust in terms of utility and cost benefit.

    In the end, all contracts boil down to cost- that is where the theory of games fits in- mathematics and economics to frame and explain the unexplainable.

    Now, thanks to Kaplan, I have to consider how geography limits expansion...great.

    v/r

    Mike

  4. #4
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I am reminded of

    METT-TC. The first T is for Terrain; the geography. The article is a reminder that METT-TC is not just a mnemonic for tactical planning upon receipt of a mission but also for factors that should be considered in ALL strategy and in all operational planning. Before commitment. Even unto life itself...

    I disagree with him on Iraq -- poorly prosecuted (which it was) and 'turned out badly' are two different things -- it is also entirely too early to say whether Iraq turned out in any fashion; it's ongoing. It'll 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.

    Thanks for linking it, Mike. Kaplan is okay I guess and is usually a good read but he sure is a somber guy.

    His last paragraph is, I think, indicative of excessively idealistic thinking (stretching...) and excessive angst -- "precipice"
    "Better, instead, to look hard at the map for ingenious ways to stretch the limits it imposes, which will make any support for liberal principles in the world far more effective. Amid the revenge of geography, that is the essence of realism and the crux of wise policymaking—working near the edge of what is possible, without slipping into the precipice."
    I think looking for ingenious ways to stretch limits is why we have made many foreign policy -- and military -- errors. A limit, by definition is just that. To stretch it one place will lead to distortions and unexpected, unpredictable eruptions elsewhere. Not to mention that the stretched limit may react forcefully.

    Support for liberal principles in the world more effective? That's how we got in to Viet Nam (which bothers him a whole lot more than it bothers me) and Iraq in the first place. He talks of many people who do not want or need our liberal principles -- and still he wants to give them said ideals...

    There is no "revenge of geography" -- geography just is. People ignore it at their peril. Some build houses on the Beach or in Flood prone areas -- then complain when the geography does what it has always done in conjunction with the geographically driven weather. Some try to live in the desert or on the steppes; the geography won't really support that so they need to expand or move...

    Kaplan is somber but he does have a way of imparting or describing reality...
    Last edited by Ken White; 04-22-2009 at 06:41 PM. Reason: Typo

  5. #5
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default Agree...

    That's why I said he wasn't really saying anything new. Remember how airmobility was going to free us from the "tyranny of terrain?" Well...it didn't. It just added a different dimension to that tyranny. You can avoid some limitations, but that comes with an acceptance of new limitations. Geography will be with us for some time for the simple reason that people (wait for it...) live on the land. No matter how virtual some things get, we're still going to a physical home or living space. And people are influenced by that space in the same way they can be by their virtual space.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default When you and I get together ....

    25 or so years from now, over glasses of Kentuck bourbon - to consider this:

    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.

    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.

  7. #7
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Mett-tc

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    METT-TC. The first T is for Terrain; the geography. The article is a reminder that METT-TC is not just a mnemonic for tactical planning upon receipt of a mission but also for factors that should be considered in ALL strategy and in all operational planning. Before commitment. Even unto life itself...
    I tried that once in school. I put down the answer to every question was METT-TC. My instructor didn't get it.

    I STILL don't understand why.

  8. #8
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default 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...").

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    There is no "revenge of geography" -- geography just is. People ignore it at their peril. Some build houses on the Beach or in Flood prone areas -- then complain when the geography does what it has always done in conjunction with the geographically driven weather. Some try to live in the desert or on the steppes; the geography won't really support that so they need to expand or move...
    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. He isn't saying that geography ever went away, but that we've tended to think of it as less important in our modern world.

    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.

    In a sense, Steve Blair is right too that this isn't "new", but I think it is important and smart of Kaplan to point it out nonetheless. This is because sometimes things are neglected just because they are seen as "old". Kaplan is correct in saying that people assign perhaps too much importance to religion and ideology, and not enough to the basics like geography.

    (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.)

  10. #10
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default All true. As I said, he's usually a worthwhile read

    Quote Originally Posted by metrodorus View Post
    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.
    (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.

  11. #11
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metrodorus View Post
    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.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

Similar Threads

  1. Robert Kaplan - What Rumsfeld Got Right
    By jonSlack in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-25-2008, 02:39 PM
  2. Bombings, revenge killings in Tal Afar
    By tequila in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-29-2007, 03:01 PM
  3. AEI Interview with Robert Kaplan at Regions of Mind
    By zenpundit in forum Blog Watch
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-11-2006, 06:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •