Geopolitics, Empire and the Bush Doctrine

Simon Dalby Carleton University www.carleton.ca/~sdalby

Geopolitics
The world is actively spatialized, divided up, labeled, sorted out into a hierarchy of places of greater or lesser µimportance¶ by political geographers, other academics and political leaders. This process provides the geographical framing within which political elites and mass publics act in the world in pursuit of their own identities and interests
(John Agnew, Geopolitics 2003, p. 3).

Ages of Geopolitics
‡ Civilizational (1825-1875) ± European Dominance ‡ Naturalized (1875-1945) ± "Darwinist" competition ‡ Ideological (1945-1990) ± Cold War Duality ‡ Globalization (1990- ) ± (New) Imperialism?

"New World Order - 1991"
‡ George Bush Sr., Cheney, Wolfowitz etc ‡ War on Iraq - 1991 ‡ Pre-eminence - Defense Guidance 1994-99
± "We won" the cold war ± Never again be vulnerable ± Dissuade competition ± RMA/Strategic superiority ± Pax Americana

"Globalized" Violence in 1990s
‡ End of Bloc divisions ‡ U.N./Territorial Covenant? (Gulf War) ‡ ³New´ wars ± Somalia, Bosnia, Sierre Leone, Kosovo, East Timor «. ‡ Drug wars ‡ Terrorism ‡ "Ecowars"

The "Bush" Doctrine
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Deterrence no longer works With "us" or with the terrorists "Rogue" states/ "axis of evil" "Exercising power without conquest" Pre-eminence Pre-emption "Prevention" "Global War on Terror"

"Calling 911"
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ "Global" terror not global at all Saudi radicals - Bin Laden etc. Land of the two holy places/infidels US/911 as horizontal escalation Imperial centre and regional rulers Saudi Arabia and oil/Resource Wars Analogy with Rome?

Defense Strategy 2005
³While the security threats of the 20th century arose from powerful states that embarked on aggressive courses, the key dimension of the 21st century ± globalization and the potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ± mean great dangers may arise from relatively weak states and ungoverned areas.´ (p. 1.)

Defense Strategy 2005
³America is a nation at war´ ‡ Strategic Objectives
± Secure US for direct attack (extremists, WMD) ± Secure strategic access, freedom of action ± Strengthen alliances and partnerships ± Establish favorable security conditions

Defense Strategy 2005
‡ ³Mature and Emerging Challenges´
± Traditional ± Irregular ± Catastrophic (WMD) ± Disruptive (cyber weapons, space etc.)

Defense Strategy 2005
‡ Accomplish Objectives
± Assure allies and friends ± Dissuade potential adversaries
‡ (developing our own key military advantages)

± Deter aggression and counter coercion
‡ (³rapidly deployable forces; resolve conflicts decisively on favorable terms´

± Defeat adversaries
‡ (³at the time, place, and in the manner of our choosing´)

Defense Strategy 2005, Forces
‡ Defend the US Homeland ‡ Operate in four forward regions
± ± ± ± Europe Northeast Asia East Asian Littoral Middle East ± Southwest Asia

‡ Swiftly Defeat Adversaries ‡ Conduct lesser contingencies

2003
# # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # ## # # # # # # ## ### # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # ## # ### ## # # # ###### ### # # # # # # # # ## ## ### ### # # # # ## # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ##### # # ### ## #### # #### # #### # ## # ##### # # ### # # # # ####### ######## # #### # # ### # ## ## # ### # # # ## # ## # ### # # # ## # # # # # ### # # ## # # # # # # #### ## # # #### # # ## ## ## ### # # # ## ## # ## # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # ## ### # # # # # # # # ## ## ## # ## ### # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

# ## ##

# # # ## # ### ## # # ### #### ### ## ## ### # # # # # # # ##

# # ##

# # # # # #

# # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # ##

#

##

# #

#

#

Defense Strategy 2005, Geography
‡ Facilities
± Main Operating Bases ± Forward Operating Sites ± Cooperative Security Locations

‡ Global Sourcing and Surge
± Combatant commanders don¶t ³own´ units

‡ Legal Arrangements (ICC exempt!)

Barnett's "Core" and "Gap"
‡ Globalization inevitable
± American lead program ± Economic freedom

‡ "Disconnection" the enemy ‡ Forcible regime change ‡ Strategy of "Shrinking the Gap"
± Leviathan forces ± System administrators/peacekeepers

The Pentagon's New Map

Empire!
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ³Imperialism´ as denunciation Mann Incoherent Empire Rome analogy ± ³Calling 911´ Rome, Britain and now US Ferguson/ Empire & Collossus Hardt and Negri Empire & Multitude
± Globalization and Sovereignty ± Double exception

Empire of Disorder?
This power which refused to conquer the world, only seeks to fill its own pockets. We are confronted with a global power that takes infinitely varied local forms while refusing to think of local variety except in terms of temporal uniformity; and it succeeds thanks to its ability to establish norms, not to conquer. It is now trying to sustain this unconquered empire by shirking the requirements that Machiavelli outlined: the obligation to enrich the conquered peoples as much as the conquerors. (Alain Joxe, Empire of Disorder 2002 p. 81)

Empire of Disorder?
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ US military strategy Supremacy and preemption doctrine War on terrorism US policing/drug wars Rule without conquest International economic institutions Resource flow security?

Rome and America?
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Grain/ petroleum Pax/ justice/ order Legions and garrisons Militarised culture Hegemony? Civilisation and salvation Which religious analogy?

Britain and America?
‡ Ferguson historical comparisons?
± ± ± ± Navy and global trade? Finance capital? Industrial production? Communications: telegraph vs. internet?

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

India? Singapore? Canada? Australia?

Current Research Questions
‡ How does Bush Doctrine ³play´ in
± ± ± ± India Australia Canada Singapore

‡ Implicit and explicit geopolitical specifications? ‡ Military role in globalization? ‡ Elucidation of politics of ³Empire´

Geopolitics, Empire and the Bush Doctrine

Simon Dalby Carleton University www.carleton.ca/~sdalby

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful