06-20-2004, 04:48 AM
Halford Mackinder coined the phrase Geopolitics.
He (Paul Kennedy) feels that the US establishment is already running for cover in Iraq. But if India were one-tenth as steadfast as the US is that would be still a great improvement
Critical Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pivot of history. The US needs to blend democratic ideals with geopolitical wisdom
By Paul Kennedy
Jun 21, 2004, 23:16
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This year marks the centenary of a remarkable article, The Geographical Pivot of History, published in the Geographical Journal and written by Sir Halford Mackinder, the founder of the school of geopolitics. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Geopolitics may be defined, crudely, as the influence of geography upon politics: how distance and terrain and climate affect the affairs of states and men. Because of geography, for example, Athens was a thalassocracy - a sea empire - whereas Sparta was a land power. </span>Eighteenth-century Britain, as an island, enjoyed the freedom of the seas; eighteenth-century Prussia was ringed by foes on all sides. One of the US's current great advantages is that, in contrast to Prussia then or Russia today, it has no great powers on its borders.,,
Already the neo-cons are running for cover, and some conservative critics are calling the whole Iraq affair misconceived and bungled. Though the administration will vigorously deny it, the state department, the national security council and the Pentagon must each be searching for an exit strategy. The worms are turning, very fast. Even if President Bush clings on in office after November's elections, many of his supporters in the Senate and house may have been swept away.
But those who would rejoice at such an outcome ought to bear in mind Mackinder's second concern. A US democracy that rejects Rumsfeldian imperial overstretch in the Middle East is also one that may be nervous of engagements elsewhere; that blocks security council resolutions for fresh peacekeeping and peace-enforcement missions, however much needed; that declines to help deal with genocide in Africa. The pendulum could indeed swing too far. And the consequences for all of us, but especially war-torn communities, could be severe.
Ever since 1945, US leaders have shouldered the responsibility of walking a fine line between doing too little and doing too much in world affairs. Drifting in either direction brings dangers and critics. It seems, though, that the Bush administration plunged a little too readily into large military interventions along Mackinder's rimlands; and yet it is also true that an equally serious predicament awaits if the US public and politicians overreact and decline to assume the responsibilities called for by their country's world position. The last thing we need is a US repeating its policies of 1919. What we really need is a US that can recapture its attitudes and policies of 1945, and blend democratic ideals with geopolitical wisdom. Is that really impossible?
· Paul Kennedy is the Dilworth professor of history and director of international security studies at Yale University. His books include The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He (Paul Kennedy) feels that the US establishment is already running for cover in Iraq. But if India were one-tenth as steadfast as the US is that would be still a great improvement
Critical Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pivot of history. The US needs to blend democratic ideals with geopolitical wisdom
By Paul Kennedy
Jun 21, 2004, 23:16
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This year marks the centenary of a remarkable article, The Geographical Pivot of History, published in the Geographical Journal and written by Sir Halford Mackinder, the founder of the school of geopolitics. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Geopolitics may be defined, crudely, as the influence of geography upon politics: how distance and terrain and climate affect the affairs of states and men. Because of geography, for example, Athens was a thalassocracy - a sea empire - whereas Sparta was a land power. </span>Eighteenth-century Britain, as an island, enjoyed the freedom of the seas; eighteenth-century Prussia was ringed by foes on all sides. One of the US's current great advantages is that, in contrast to Prussia then or Russia today, it has no great powers on its borders.,,
Already the neo-cons are running for cover, and some conservative critics are calling the whole Iraq affair misconceived and bungled. Though the administration will vigorously deny it, the state department, the national security council and the Pentagon must each be searching for an exit strategy. The worms are turning, very fast. Even if President Bush clings on in office after November's elections, many of his supporters in the Senate and house may have been swept away.
But those who would rejoice at such an outcome ought to bear in mind Mackinder's second concern. A US democracy that rejects Rumsfeldian imperial overstretch in the Middle East is also one that may be nervous of engagements elsewhere; that blocks security council resolutions for fresh peacekeeping and peace-enforcement missions, however much needed; that declines to help deal with genocide in Africa. The pendulum could indeed swing too far. And the consequences for all of us, but especially war-torn communities, could be severe.
Ever since 1945, US leaders have shouldered the responsibility of walking a fine line between doing too little and doing too much in world affairs. Drifting in either direction brings dangers and critics. It seems, though, that the Bush administration plunged a little too readily into large military interventions along Mackinder's rimlands; and yet it is also true that an equally serious predicament awaits if the US public and politicians overreact and decline to assume the responsibilities called for by their country's world position. The last thing we need is a US repeating its policies of 1919. What we really need is a US that can recapture its attitudes and policies of 1945, and blend democratic ideals with geopolitical wisdom. Is that really impossible?
· Paul Kennedy is the Dilworth professor of history and director of international security studies at Yale University. His books include The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->