Reading to Be Done Before This Discussion:

:Barnett, Thomas. 2003. The Pentagon's New Map. Esquire vol 139. Also view the accompanying maps.

: Dalby, Simon.  2003.  Geopolitics, the Bush Doctrine and war on Iraq.  The Arab World Geographer Vol 6 No 1.

Things to Bring to Discussion: Your own notes on the articles and/or a printout.

Due in Discussion This Week: Maps and Answers to questions from last week, ,Answers to the Questions Below

Due in Discussion Next Week: Questions as usual.

How Does This Discussion Connect to Lecture?   In lecture we examine definitions of “nation,” “state,” “colonialism,” and “imperialism” as a means of understanding how the contemporary geopolitical world is structured.  We also explore how geographers and politicians have theorized geopolitical power in the world, and how those theories have been crucial in determining geopolitical structure.  In this discussion, we will explore the changing nature of U.S. policies as a result of the events of September 11 and the war in Iraq.

To Prepare for Discussion:  Geopolitics is the study of power and territory.  The term is most often used to discuss relations of power at the global scale, but as we have seen in lecture, the term also can be applied to smaller scale situations.  One article you will read this week is part of a forum on the War in Iraq from the Arab World Geographer.  While I have selected one particular article for you to read, you may wish to read some of the others.  The commentaries on the articles provided by Agnew and Murphy are particularly insightful.  The article by Dalby interprets the Iraq war through a geopolitical lens, aiming for a "more nuanced" interpretation than what we commonly hear.  In particular he argues that the war is "also very much about how the world is to be understood and represented" (Dalby 2003:Geopolitics section, para. 3).  Responding to Barnett's (2003) article in Esquire, he argues that in political discourses surrounding the war the world is divided into those that participate in globalization and "wild zones" that require military action to tame.  As an alternative he offers a vision of the world as a global society characterized by interconnections and flows of goods and people.  Challenging "us and them" geopolitical visions of the world is important for resolving geopolitical conflicts, he argues.  For Barnett recognizing the disconnections between "core and gap" regions is vital for resolving geopolitical conflicts. As you read the article, think about whether or not you agree with their respective arguments and why.  The articles were written at the start of the war.  How do you think they would have been received by readers then versus today, more than three years later? What are the consequences of thinking about the world in terms of division or in terms of interconnection?   As you read, be sure that you understand the authors' overall argument.  It may take more than one reading in order for you to do so.

Name: Honor Code:
Questions to be Answered and Turned In at the Beginning of Class

1.  According to Barnett why does a lack of globalization result in conflict?    

 

 

 

2.   How does Dalby support his claim that understanding the way the world is represented is important for understanding the sources of the conflict?  

 

 

 

3. What is the difference between arguing that conflict results from a disconnection between core and gap and the argument that conflict is a result of uneven connections?

 

 

4. What basic assumption about geopolitics does the Bush doctrine of pre-emption abandon?

 

 

5.  Do you agree with the Dalby's argument that the problem of Al Qaeda might have been tackled as a problem of international crime rather than by military means?  Under what conditions is military action a useful and proper response to terrorism or oppression by a dictator?

 

 

6. What is one issue or question from the reading that you would like to discuss during class?