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.
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
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
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"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."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."
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
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
When you and I get together ....
25 or so years from now, over glasses of Kentuck bourbon - to consider this:
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.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.
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.
Mett-tc
I tried that once in school. I put down the answer to every question was METT-TC. My instructor didn't get it.Originally Posted by Ken White
I STILL don't understand why.
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...").
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.)
All true. As I said, he's usually a worthwhile read
The punditocracy always amuses me with their choices of lead lines.Welcome aboard.(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.)
If only...
If only I could load ArcGIS on my Ipod.... and a GPS implant in my head...
In civilian life, I worked on school boundary changes. You folks thing war is bad. Try moving a school boundary 300' in an upscale suburban neighborhood. Something about wrath, and a woman scorned. Pure good vs. evil. Old time biblical stuff.
When I worked on KRG boundaries last year, it was just about love and death...not pure evil (like people who move school boundaries).
Geography is...
Steve
Wow...
...that would a hell of a robust iPod...I use a workstation to kick around the big DEM's...torque-y like M-60
Last edited by Surferbeetle; 05-14-2009 at 02:43 AM.
Sapere Aude
Macbook Pro
Steve:
Probably not the right commercial for Apple's primary customers, but I've dragged a goosed-up Macbook Pro around for a while. Use ArcGIS (9.2) via Parallels. It runs everything, and, so far, avoids the disasters while letting me do fast and easy graphics interfaces (Photoshop, Illustrator, CAD).
Working outside the US with civilians is, perhaps, the nastiest environment for bugs and viruses, but my Mac always stays above the fray. After all, who in their right mind would create a virus for Macs (Other than Dr. Evil, or Number 2)?
Plus, its so damned cute.
Steve
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.
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
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.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
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
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).
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.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.
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.
Sir, what the hell are we doing?
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?
If you have an iPod Touch or an iPhone, go to the App Store, and search for the AGS Touch...Don't know if that will work for you or not, but it's a free app...
"Hey, Leif?! Where'd we leave the boat?"
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks