Talk:Geostrategy

Geostrategic locations

Thanks... I was the fellow who added to your list of geostrategic locations. I'm an amateur historian with an avid interest in military history. Would the author of this article consider certain "cities" of enduring strategic value? Obviously a city's geostrategic location is a partial contributing factor to its overall strategic value; that value being also dependent on geopolitical and economic considerations. Yet some cities, no matter what the shape of nations are, have enduring geostrategic value aside from all other factors - at least since the birth of the nation-state, and certainly into the far future. Examples may include Liege, New Orleans, Baghdad, San Francisco, Singapore, Havana, Cairo, and New York. All of these cities are situated on critical geographic nodes that converge unique military, commercial and geographic values. Of course, it would seem redundant in light of having listed "territories." And further, even this suggestion is tinted more for academic interest (and discussion) rather than to the public benefit. —Marvingardns

Hey Marvin. Thanks again for your contribution. As far as it stands, I have nothing against a list of cities, but I do fear two things: 1) substantial overlap with the territories and islands lists, and 2) a western bias (mostly because I know next to nothing about strategic cities in Asia. I don't think the four lists we have now suffer from these two problems. If you'd like to add a list of cities, you're certainly welcome (remember be bold). Otherwise, I look forward to collaborating with you on articles. —thames 13:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Thames. Appreciate the great support. In consideration of the subject, I have written my first article on Gonzo Station, which was the U.S. Navy's operational designation for a so-called "geostrategic location" in the North Arabian Sea. Would appreciate any tips you may have for a beginner. I'm a quick-learner with hungry mind, and I look forward to being a part of this community! 11:47, 22 July 2005 (CST) Marvingardns

Stevertigo intro text

Stevertigo version

In geopolitics geostrategy is the application of tactical strategies toward the goal of asserting international political and economic interests, through both overt and subvert means such as economic leveraging, propaganda, ethnic division, violence, etc.

Hence "geostrategy" is type of worldview within dominant societies, which considers the economic resources (ie. materials and labour) of less powerful societies as being fair game —within the domain of, and subject to the whims and controls of the dominant society and its demands for consumption.

In the often-obfuscative language of geopolitics, geostrategy is concerned with "matching a country's resources with its geopolitical objectives," where "geopolitical objectives" is left undefined or is else deferential to biases in disproportionate economic influence toward dominant (typically Western society) nations. In this regard, geostrategy is an aspect within expansionist-imperialist ideology, and is related in its terminologies to the concept of the free market.

Geostrategists, as distinct from geopoliticians, advocate "proactive" strategies, and approach geopolitics from a localist-nationalist point-of-view.

Many geostrategists are also geographers, specializing in subfields of geography, such as "human geography", "political geography", "economic geography", "cultural geography", "military geography", and "strategic geography". Geostrategy is most closely related to strategic geography.

Thames version

Geostrategy is a subfield of geopolitics. As with all strategies, geostrategy is concerned with matching means to ends—in this case, a country's resources with its geopolitical objectives. Geostrategists, as distinct from geopoliticians, advocate proactive strategies, and approach geopolitics from a nationalist point-of-view. Many geostrategists are also geographers, specializing in subfields of geography, such as "human geography", "political geography", "economic geography", "cultural geography", "military geography", and "strategic geography". Geostrategy is most closely related to strategic geography.

Comments

Stevertigo, the intro text you propose is quite openly POV, and makes claims that certainly need citations (for example: that geostrategy is only prevalent in "dominant" states). If you have citations, I would certainly urge you to add the text to the Criticisms section, which I think is a more appropriate place. Also, I thought I'd ask: have you read any Mahan or Mackinder? If you want to learn more about the origins of geostrategy I would suggest Mahan's The Problem of Asia and Mackinder's The Geographical Pivot of History.—thames 00:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thames, please do not take my disbelief at your criticism the wrong way. I am sure that you are willing to compromise in areas where you view may be incorrect, or simply limited by some typical cultural bias. For example, your criticism requesting citation for the statement that 'geostrategy is particular to dominant states' is unbelievable on its surface, as the very definition of "global strategy" or "world planning" certainly rules out including Bolivia or Mexico as prime players. Likewise, while the statement "geostrategy is concerned with matching means to ends; in this case, a country's resources with its geopolitical objectives" is prosaic and somewhat eloquent, it is entirely unreasonable in its language, dependent upon an English idiomatic expression (means to an ends), and fails to define the basic context: which countries resources? What resources? Who does the strategizing? All of these inadequacies in your version point toward a bias Im afraid, and it is the obligation of an encylopedia to dissect and explain any such obfuscative language —even if (especially if) its the language of the particular field. If this were medicine, I could not argue. Legalese writing must often be generalised, or put in context. In this case we are talking about a topic in political science which is limited only to the planet in terms of its context. In that regard, expressing localist notions of what the term is supposed to mean, in the obfuscative language of politics, is not appropriate for an open, free, and unicultural information resource. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC) P.S: I had a chuckle at the WP:APT policy which you cite on your talk. "Peacock terms" are precisely what the article uses - "means to ends", etc. -SV

Stevertigo, regarding "dominant states", there is no precept of geostrategy that confines its considerations to great powers. Small states can and do make use of geostrategic considerations in their respective security dilemmas. Croatia and Bosnia each had geostrategic imperatives in the Yugoslav wars. Israel has geostrategic imperatives in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. The numerous African states surrounding and involved in Zaire each have geostrategic objectives in their interventions. Taiwan has geostrategy regarding China, just as China has geostrategy regarding Taiwan. Pakistan has quite pertinent geostrategic problems with its position between China, India, Afghanistan, and India--yet no one would call Pakistan the dominant state in that mix. This is why it is a gross distortion to say that geostrategy is particular to dominant states. You seem overly focused on the "global" and "world" applications of geostrategy--aspects which are not inherently implied in the term geostrategy. Bolivia and Mexico may not have global geostrategies, but in security conflicts with their regions they absolutely have geostrategic considerations: which terroritories to defend and hold, how the geography of the land will affect their ability to rule, and their ability to make war, how the demographic geography or resource geography will affect their relative growth or power, etc. It's true that the geostrategy of Bolivia is less studied than the geostrategy of Germany, but that's true as a general rule: Bolivia in general is less studied than Germany. It doesn't follow that geostrategy is thus inherently more particular to Germany than to Bolivia.

"Means to an end" is not an idiomatic expression. "Raining cats and dogs" is an idiomatic expression: it doesn't make literal sense, but you know what it means. "Means to an end" makes literal sense. Means are means, ends are ends--i.e. matching resources to goals. The statement could not be more literal. Means to an end can be anything: threat of force, use of force, terrorism, cultural boycott, awareness campaign, international law, business contacts, bribery, assassination, economic sanctions, cultural exchange, etc. Anything a state can muster. Ends can also be nearly anything: a peace treaty, expansion, alliance, obtaining resources, coercing a foreign policy decision, increased trade, etc. None of these lists is anywhere near comprehensive, and nor are any of these lists of means or ends particular to "dominant" states. Thus the use of generic language in the intro, because the concepts themselves are generic. They are only specific when a geostrategist from a given nation crafts a geostrategy. Therefore, we ought to leave the specifics to the explanations of individual geostrategists.

I agree that it is the job of the encyclopedia to give explanation and context, but I do not agree that your version does so. What I see in your version is a great load of editorializing done by yourself, essentially chalking all of geostrategy up to a Western imperialist expansionist evil exploitative racist obfuscative capitalist doctrine of global domination, and asserting this as if it were a black-and-white fact. That is the very definition of POV pushing. Like I said before, I would be happy to have that kind of information in a Criticisms section, if it is cited.—thames 13:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thames, you claim that dominant states is irrelevant in the context of geostrategy, as if geostrategy were a uniform and abstract quantity. It is not, and the degrees to which geostrategic principles can and are exercised according to economic and military power ("dominance") are not extricable from this field. To make an analogy, one can say that money loans are an abstract quantity which can be looked at clinically and mathematically. Even this is only true given the uniformity of market systems and in a context wherin rules are stable and governed to be extricated from corruption, bias, tampering, controls, etc.: ie. done so in such a way as to make the rules for large entity loans similiar to those given to small loans or personal loans. For example in a deregulated "free market" context the natural dominance of weathier parties would exert itself to form an economic and political heirarchy of common interests, which in turn would effect the balance of loan transactions, and alter the very definition of what we call "lending."

In the geopolitical context there exists a dominance of powers and alliances, and like it or not these form a heirarchial system. This influences the very definition of "geostrategy" away from any abstract academic term (as you claim), toward a practical and real-world definition of 'what it is': one among various tools for global hegemony. (We can probably even redirect geostrategy to hegemony, and save a section there for those like yourself who might like to claim that hegemony is a Good Thing.) Put plainly, your references to Bosnia, Israel, and other local geostrategies are completely of context if you dont consider for example the pan-European (US too) and Russian influence on Bosnia, the US influence on anything dealing with Israeli geostrategy issues, etc. etc. Its like trying to write an article about the Vietnam War while trying to omit any mention of the US in regards to its early buildup, etc. US influence was substantial even during Eisenhower's reign. Hence, these are all local issues in the wider context of "geostrategies" as driven by dominant states: US, Europe (separately or collectively), Russia, China, etc.

"You seem overly focused on the "global" and "world" applications of geostrategy--aspects which are not inherently implied in the term geostrategy." Perhaps, but we may need to make some simple disambiguation: does the "geo" in geostrategy refer to the world or to land itself - such as in "geology" or "geography." When talking about things big and small its helpful to start with the large and work your way down to the particular. I dont know how you define "overview" but thats just my take on the issue. The article does list certain prominent figures - Kennan being perhaps the best known. I dont know of anyone from his time with a more macroscopic and global view of US geopolitics than he. C'mon - this isnt the 18th century where the major geostrategy issue is how to kill off Native Americans and expand west. This is the 21st century, in which virtually all geostrategy is international, directly influenced by international trade issues, and driven by the demands of dominant societies. Any schoolkid can understand that.

'Means to ends' is an an idiomatic expression in this context - and a peacock term too. But I understand a poets fondness for his own poetry. The statement "geostrategists, as distinct from geopoliticians, advocate proactive strategies, and approach geopolitics from a nationalist point-of-view" also suggests that you understand the international nature of geostrategy, and that nationalist interests drive it. In that context its more than fair to point out how the nationalist interests of certain societies have a greater degree of influence than others. -Ste|vertigo 17:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve, first, I don't appreciate the personal attacks and condescension in the above response. I've been nothing but civil and courteous to you, and it's not too much to expect that in return, even though we quite obviously disagree on the article's content.

Steve, I believe you are confusing "idiomatic" expression with a "euphemistic" expression. Idiom: An idiom is an expression (i.e. term or phrase) whose meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions. A euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces. You are trying to say that "means to ends" is a euphemism, not an idiom. Means to ends is quite literal, although means is a nice way of referring to potentially nasty things. Unfortunately, there's not a good way of referring to all the means states employ in their foreign policies without creating a huge laundry list of all the possible things states can do to create the outcomes they favor. In this case, a generic word works best, even if it is euphemistic. Furthermore, a point I made above, geostrategy is a general application of geographical realities to foreign policy strategy. The means only become specific when a specific geostrategist crafts a national strategy. The means employed by China will be quite different from those employed by the United States which will be quite different than those applied by Azerbaijan. It's appropriate to discuss the means in the context of an individual geostrategist's writings, but to take one set of means (e.g. the especially violent and negative ones that you are proposing) and saying that they apply to all geostrategy is POV pushing.

The "geo" in geostrategy refers to geography. The most famous geostrategist, Halford Mackinder, was a geographer (among other things), and his first writing on geostrategy was "The Geographic Pivot of History" which gives a geographic interpretation of strategic history. This is why I urged you, in my very first response, to read Mahan and Mackinder, the first prominent English-language writers on geostrategy.

Geostrategy certainly does have global focus amongst great powers today. But it was not this way in the past. The Greeks had their own geostrategy for the Aegean and Mediterranean seas--certainly not global. But they applied geographic realities to their foreign policy strategy. States without a global reach can have geostrategies just as those with global reach have geostrategies. Your characterization of geostrategy as a doctrine of the strong, for the purpose of empire and exploitation, is at the very least one-sided. That's the very definition of an NPOV violation. My generic description makes no distinction between geostrategy's use by great powers or by minor powers nor even by sub-state actors (yes, Al-Qaeda too can have a geostrategy). Where we should make those distinctions is in the descriptions of the individual geostrategists--there it is appropriate to discuss their global or local vision, the means that they suggested be employed, and the goals they set forth (whether benign or imperialist/exploitative/capitalist/evil/blah blah).

It is absolutely trivial to suggest that big states with lots of resources have greater potential influence on international events than small states with no resources. It does not follow that geostrategy is therefore uniquely a tool of the strong, as geostrategy can perfectly well be integrated into an asymmetrical strategy of the weak against the strong (thus redirecting geostrategy to hegemony is quite clearly nonsense). The point about the influence of strong states ought to be made, if at all, in the general article on foreign policy or international relations. The context of a particular geostrategy belongs in the discussion of that particular geostrategy. You cannot characterize the pre-WWII geostrategies in the same way that you characterize the Cold War geostrategies, or the post-Cold War geostrategies, or the Ancient Greek geostrategies, etc etc. That is why the lead text ought to stick to the basics: geostrategy is an application of geographic realities to foreign policy strategy, and seeks to match a country's means to its ends.—thames 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thames, it may be important to remeber that "taking offense is as violent as giving offense". I have some specific points, based on particular statements:

1. "In this case, a generic word works best, even if it is euphemistic." - Euphemisms dont belong in any lede paragraph, or in any definition of a term. Let us first agree on that.
2. "Geostrategy certainly does have global focus amongst great powers today. But it was not this way in the past." - Does the article say, "historically, geostrategy was..."? No it does not. The current definition is dominant, even if its recent history is dramatically different from its historical usage and meaning.
3. "Your characterization of geostrategy as a doctrine of the strong, for the purpose of empire and exploitation, is at the very least one-sided. " - That would seem to contradict statement #2 somewhat. "Global focus" naturally implies a dominance - this dominance would naturally carry through to the definition of the term itself, and your representation of a 'generalist view' of geostrategy is simply a red herring to disguise the bias inherent in the clinical definition you give. For example, the old debate surrounding the Great Famine article was largely one of style - the clinical view sought to remove any mention of English culpability for the Irish plight, as based in the laissez-faire policy of the period, and instead focused on the fungus, the potato, how 'Irish families divided their land' (translation: landowners split farms into rental properties for peasant lease) and of course Catholics and their many children. My point wasnt that birth control and fungi werent relevant - it was simply that the balance and emphasis were entirely clinical and therefore obfuscative. I think you need to deal with the term "obfuscation" before making sweeping claims of bias.
4. "It is absolutely trivial to suggest that big states with lots of resources have greater potential influence on international events than small states with no resources." - Power is not trivial - thats why its called power. Explaining the concept of water to a fish may seem improper to some, but any scientist knows the relevance of the environment in crafting any conceptual understanding of phenomenae. If you can understand what water you swim in, you can become better educated and capable of explaining concepts and their contexts to others. I dont see how anyone can claim that world politics is a trivial matter in any context, let alone this one.
5. "Yes, Al-Qaeda too can have a geostrategy" - Is Osama bin Laden listed among the ranks of geostrategists? Is any effort here made to attribute or define geostrategies not called by such term, or attributable to a particular official of such title? Of course not. While it makes sense somewhat to use such a list to give an overview of various people's 'works', the term itself is one from specialist language, which only recognises a limited set of people as the originators of reconised and (apparently) respected strategies - for good or ill. What Kennan and Kissinger did with lots of cunning and planning, Napoleon and Hirohito did with a simple glance at the map. Where's the science? More to the point - what is the science without the power to implement it? With the possible exception of String Theory, every science has only testability as its basic quality. Geostrategy OTOH, would seem to require only guns and an opinion. So again, where is rationale for regading this topic seriously as if it were a science? -Ste|vertigo 02:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I explained quite clearly why what could be considered a euphemistic term is necessary in the lede in this case above. It is a general term used as a stand in for a wide variety of actions which are too numerous to list in the lede. As far as the definition, I think the definition should fit geostrategy as a whole, not only current but also historical. More general in the lede is better. Global focus does not imply dominance (e.g. Brazil and South Korea are globally focused countries but are not considered dominant countries). I have no problem with including all the specifics--I'm not trying to use "clinical" language throughout the entire article. But the lede ought to reflect the overall definition. I'm more than happy if cited criticisms are added to the individual geostrategists or the criticism section--the more specific information in these areas the better. I don't disagree that power is unimporant, but I do think it's redundant with the more general articles on international relations and foreign policy. And finally, Geostrategy is not a science, and I've not been claiming it as such. It's at best a social science, at worst a pseudoscience--it's been called both by supporters and detractors alike. Still, every article that's notable enough for Wikipedia deserves serious treatment, even if it's not a scientific subject.

That you have not added anything at all to the criticisms for the past week or so leads me to think that your intro text is simply your own research, rather than something based on verifiable and citable sources. I would be very excited to have you help with the criticisms and individual geostrategists and then re-evaluate the lede afterwards. Your sole focus on using the lede to characterize Geostrategy to your liking seems very much like POV pushing.—thames 23:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to run around my arguments, Thames. The point is that the "definition" of Geostrategy must include caveats with regard to the term itself -- namely its inherent bias toward Western or Euro-American notions of what geopolitical strategy is and should be. You raised Al Qaeda as an inclusive example, and then I explained why by your own example, "geostrategy" would by definition exclude OBL's notions. Hence we have a term "geostrategy" which by the definition of its "verifiable and citable sources" is an inherently POV term. Speaking with at least a little experience about how to write controversial topics, I can state that we (WP) have an obligation to explain things in a way which isnt limited by how its 'defined', but rather must also include how such is defined. Things at some thinktank or other might work differently, but here, in an open international project, the battle between exclusive versus inclusive concepts must favor the inclusive. Any "general" definition would also need to define the context (or "political environment") -- again, barring using WP:CITE as an ad-hominem or crutch, I dont see how anyone can argue against that basic and rational angle, or claim such to be 'just Stevertigo's critical POV'. -Ste|vertigo 18:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve, your argument is precisely that: your argument. It has been your personal position since the very beginning, and it is quite clear that you have not read any writings on geopolitics (either expounding geostrategy or criticizing it) or you would have come up with some sources by this point. Wikipedia:No original research is official policy and not a lame excuse, an ad hominem, or a "crutch." Further WP:CITE is quite clear about when to cite: WP:CITE#When you add content and WP:CITE#Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed--both of which apply in this case. Saying that sources on geostrategy are inherently POV is obvious: that's why we cite sources for all sides of the issue. There are authors quite critical of geostrategy (e.g. Christopher Fettweis) which can be found and cited. Until then, your lede text is your original research, and it doesn't belong in the article.—thames 01:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont mean to frustrate you, Thames. The issue again is the lede and the angle it takes to represent a particular notion of geostrategy or a more inclusive one. It doesnt matter if I havent read anything on geostrategy - Ive read this article and am no better informed on the subject. Thats a problem with the article, not with my lack of expertise --a pseudoscience as you say. You can continue to claim that simply expanding or clarifying any obvious ambiguities in the concept is "original research," but others may simply call it better writing. Again your "means to ends" original research leaves much room for improvement. -Ste|vertigo 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation.

To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together. -Zbigniew Brzezinski[1]

"Means to ends" is not original research, it's the definition of "strategy." It does matter that you haven't read any sources on geostrategy because you're attempting to redefine geostrategy according to your personal view--which as you admit is completely uninformed. If and when you have a source to cite, I would welcome your constructive additions.—thames 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding tidy soundbites is often appropriate for clarity. This isnt Fox News. And the issue isnt a disagreement over what policies are valid or not, but we're looking for a lede which actually states what the concept refers to --a definition as best we can derive it from sources. So lets look at the varied expert sources we have. The Brzezinski quote above states it in both diplomatic-speak and fairly plain terms, which Ive translated a bit:

• "For the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves..."
  • ie. 'geostrategy for the rest of the world not including Latin America and Africa, which are under control and negligible -respectively'
• "purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states"
  • "management" of course implies control, and purposeful of course implies not being useful to states, but rather getting use out of the various states it controls. "Dynamic" is of course a codeword for "useful."
• "careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states"
  • "Catalytic" is code for "potentially problematic," almost as if it were a synonymous with "volatile" or "cataclysmic" - very clever language. Maybe "Geopolitics is simply the application of poetic language toward hegemonic goals."

• "the twin interests of America are...the short-term preservation of its unique global power"
  • "unique global power" would seem to be self explanatory, but Ill translate anyway: "Empire"
• "the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation."
  • This asserts of course a benevolent view of Empire, which even (rm. Godwins Law) and Caligula held to some degree or another. IIRC.

• "the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are..."
  • note that Brzezinski makes this a direct translation from the above paragraph: United States Eurasian geostraegy maps directly to "Imperial" "grand imperatives." Very clever, and yet very clear.
• "to prevent collusion"
  • Collusion: "when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit" - cooperation naturally being a Bad Thing if its not within the framework of that "institutionalized global" variety.
• "maintain security dependence among the vassals"
  • ie. keep the pups on the teat - milk soured with fear and loathing.
• "to keep tributaries pliant tributaries and protected,"
  • tributaries means "states which have been transformed to function in resource mode", whether its to their benefit or not. Ideally, oil, gas, timber, and labour are all available at discount prices. Pliant means compliant (or pliable).
• "to keep the [barbarians] from coming together."
  • Translation: to 'divide and conquer' 'those not us.' "Barbarians" originally referred to any non-Greek speaking peoples, when Greece was on top).

A direct translation of Brzezinski's words might read a bit Chomskyesque for some people, but thats the nature of the topic as we are free to explain it in this open forum. While Brzezinski's formal quote is more general and abstract, no real discussion of this topic can fail to make some reference to the proverbial 800 pound gorillas of the world. Understandably, people have careers to protect and so forth, and institutionalism has always sought to rear its ugly head here at Wikipedia, but let's accept the responsibility that our freedom demands of us and call a spade a spade. Its interesting that the article has some reference to game theory, ie people = chesspieces. Hrmph. -Ste|vertigo 20:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, your translation is yours (i.e. original research). Feel free to include the Brzezinski quote in the article text in the Brzezinski section. But it would be incorrect to take one (out-of-context) Brzezinski quote and assume that his opinions are the same as all the other geostrategists and can therefore be used to define the entire field.—thames 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that NPOV trancends CITE, as you interpret it to mean. We dont simply let spammers and marketeers define how the spam and marketing articles explain their subjects. That would not be NPOV. Again, letting "geostrategists" alone define what "geostrategy" is would violate NPOV, even if "criticism" comes only as an interpretation (albeit a very plain one). Can you understand this basic point? -Ste|vertigo 18:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV may transcend CITE, but it does not transcend WP:OR. There are plenty of critics of geostrategy (Christopher Fettweis, G. O'Tuathail, Charles Clover, etc) , who may even define geostrategy in terms similar to yours. Find them. NPOV requires presenting all sides of the debate, so long as they are verifiable. Inserting Stevertigo's analysis of geostrategy is Original Research. Find the written criticisms and represent them in the article, not yourself. 207.172.82.219 22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV may transcend CITE, but it does not transcend WP:OR" - Actually it does, as the WP founder long ago defined NPOV to be our "non-negotiable" prime directive. Further, writing articles (for some) is itself "original research" and we are left with the burden of simply using clear and non-localizing language to describe phenomenae. If there is a topic which carries strong and even intrinsic biases to particular interpretations or worldviews, then it is not only not OR to do so, its simply POV to not do so. Get it? Making a laundry list of acceptable sources and pushing these as a baseline requirement is an extreme violation of NPOV - especially for such a relativistic topic. You rightly stated the topic to be based in a nationalist point of view. This baseline isnt simply a variable or qualifier, but an intrinsic aspect for any topic that basically translates to hegemony. Would you object to citing non-institutionalist writers on what "geostrategy" is, even if they dont refer explicitly to the term "geostrategy"? -Ste|vertigo 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and OR are both official policy, one isn't higher than the other. I wasn't making a complete list of acceptable sources, I was pointing out that sources specifically critical of geostrategy do exist. Their criticism is verifiable, and doing some actual research will add to the strength of the article. And yes, geostrategists write from a nationalist point of view when they craft their strategies, and the article states that quite clearly right up front. I don't object to you using sources if they talk about geostrategy/geopolitics. If they don't talk about geostrategy/geopolitics then they belong in a different article. It is POV to omit verifiable facts on on side of an issue, but it is also POV to your own personal criticisms into an article and state them as if they were settled fact. I am not preventing you from adding verifiable criticisms (I've even added some myself--properly cited I would add), but I am also not going to have you writing up your own Stevertigo manifesto and presenting it as the objective truth. 207.172.82.219 03:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"it would be incorrect to take one (out-of-context) Brzezinski quote and assume that his opinions are the same as all the other geostrategists and can therefore be used to define the entire field" - What would be more incorrect would be to limit our explanationism according to the constraints of a conveniently fifi term like "geostrategist." That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. "NPOV and OR are both official policy, one isn't higher than the other." And yes, WP:NPOV does tranced WP:CITE - always has, AFAICR. Wikipedias success has led to some scrutiny and JW has naturally responded with calls for more WP:CITE - not a shift in priorities, but an attempt to appeal to the critics and other fifi academics who never took an interest until WP made the newspapers. "geostrategists write from a nationalist point of view when they craft their strategies, and the article states that quite clearly right up front" - this is like a disclaimer rather than defining the context. Again, where is the harm in mentioning the word "hegemony" in the lede, if only to disambiguate that term from this one? On the one hand, you say the topic is too vague to form a definition, yet on the other hand you dislike the notion of disambiguating this term from less inherently biased or nationalistic terms. -Ste|vertigo 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using "hegemony" in the intro text, nor do I have any problem with mentioning criticisms of geostrategy in the lede text. Your proposed intro text did not mention hegemony in fact, but instead treated the criticisms of geostrategy as if they were settled fact, rather than labeling them as criticism. NPOV does not mean providing some sort of made up "context," it means providing both (or all) sides of an issue, correctly labeled and cited as such. Your intro text did not do that, it pushed your POV as if it were fact.207.172.82.219 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"I dont have a problem..." Good. We agree on something. "Criticisms of geostrategy" is mistated, as is your characterization of my version as "gibberish" or POV. NPOV language is not criticism - its simply stating what the topic is about. I think its important to note who coined the term "geostrategy." What terms were used for "geostrategy" before geostrategy was coined? Presumably its a recent term, modeled after Kjellén's "geopolitics," but what terms are parallel with it? Were there ancient Roman or Inuit words for "geostrategy?" What were they? Excess term specialization is a form of instrinsic bias, when the culture shapes the word itself and the word itself is deferential to definitions and concepts as defined by the culture. A circular argument in other words. This is the additional text I added, removing text that exists in the current version:

In geopolitics, geostrategy refers to various theoretical and strategic approaches concerning the control and manipulation of foreign resources into a single foreign policy concept.

In the real-world context, relative national strength and dominance (economic and military) are intrinsic to any operable concepts of "strategy," and "geostrategy" represents an academic-intellectual bridge between the political and military goals of a particular nation.

Hence "geostrategy" considers any local nationalist agenda as its foundation, and therefore has meaning only in the context where competing national agendas are well-defined or otherwise understood.

• Ie. "strategy" only has meaning when the rules of the game are defined. What is the game Brzezinski and other refer to? We need to talk about that - nationalist competition, whatever its called.

In contrast, the term "hegemony" moreoften connotes a universalist point of view, which typically views the controls implied by "geostrategy" as imperial and violating of foreign sovereignty.

• This is the opposite of what you stated, referring to "geostrategy" as a neutral term. Ive demonstrated otherwise.

More later -Ste|vertigo 15:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The "comparison" you're making between hegemony and geostrategy is absurd. They are not analogous concepts. You could distinguish between hegemony and empire, or hegemony and primacy, or hegemony and unipolarity. But not between any of those concepts and geostrategy. The former are positive (describing things as they are), geostrategy is normative (describing how a state should conduct itself). The sentence in your intro text doesn't make any sense.207.172.82.219 06:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened to your username? Your loss of identity makes your edits appear to be without source. There is no comparison - we are simply disambiuating different but related concepts - not 'like totally different' concepts as you claim, but related concepts. You say before you 'have no problem' with mentioning the concept of hegemony, and now you say its 'like totally different.' Which is it? -Ste|vertigo 19:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about my username. Thanks for your concern. My point is that since they are not anologous, it doesn't make sense to "disambiguate" between them. I don't have a problem with "hegemony" in the lede text. As you can see for yourself, hegemony is mentioned in the intro text as it currently stands.216.15.56.140 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG states some reasons for why a unique (or at least differentiable) identity is important, particularly in the context of discussions. And related terms always have to be "disambiguated" even if "they are not analogous," for the simple reason that whether something is "related" or "analogous" or not depends on point of view. POV in other words. So we have to deal with it, if, for no other reason just because I say so. Ill figure out more terms we need to disambiguate to create a properly descriptive environment for you to continue to play in. I think your work is excellent, but again, we need an original source for the term "geostrategy." Warm regards, -Ste|vertigo 01:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:SIG. You'll just have to roll with it for the time being. "Because you say so" does little to alter the fundamental fact that hegemony is a characteristic, whereas geostrategy is a method of looking at foreign policy. It doesn't make sense to disambiguate the two. It would make sense to differentiate different characteristics: hegemony, primacy, imperialism, unipolarity. Throwing a method of looking at foreign policy into the mix doesn't make sense--it doesn't belong. Geostrategy is not a characteristic of a country. Ill figure out more terms we need to disambiguate to create a properly descriptive environment for you to continue to play in. I find this terribly condescending, especially coming from someone who admittedly has read nothing about geostrategy--not one book, not one article. This is why it seems so strange to me that you would be so insistent on redefining geostrategy, given that you don't know a) how geostrategists define geostrategy, or b) how critics of geostrategy define geostrategy, because you haven't read either. I don't go over to articles like Brownian motion and tell the math-oriented editors that I am going to redefine the topic, despite the fact that I've never read anything at all about brownian motion.216.15.56.140 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We already agree that geostrategy isnt a science, so any comparison to math is inappropriate. It may be appropriate to say that geostrategy 'attempts to be a science' but again, that itself is terminology which is inextricable from the context of the culture in which the term is valid. Do you understand the tendency of a unified project to unify terms which are extremely similar, in spite of any differences in etymology and application? "Hegemony is a characteristic, whereas geostrategy is a method of looking at foreign policy." Im not so sure hegemony is a characteristic. Certainly Empire has hegemonic character, but an aspect can often become a noun if it is useful or necessary to conceptualize it as a distinct term. Geostrategy OTOH may be distinct in the academic context, but then we seem to be agreeing on narrowing it down to "geostrategy is an academic intellectual abstraction of the military and political goals of a particular foreign policy". If its agreeable, we can use it, regardless if it me or you who said it. If I thought "means to ends" was anywhere near as useful or correct I would support it too, and your expression (its not a quote is it?) would be fit for keeping in the lede. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that how articles are written depends on what is agreeable to all sides on the issue. I contend that the term carries an inherent bias that needs to be explained in depth, and I recognize that you have thus far made a couple concessions on this basic point. -Ste|vertigo 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve, you said: Do you understand the tendency of a unified project to unify terms which are extremely similar, in spite of any differences in etymology and application? and I contend that the term carries an inherent bias that needs to be explained in depth... How would you know? You've never read any geostrategist, nor have you read any critics of geostrategy. You have no idea what range of variety exists between geostrategist, or what range of criticisms are leveled against it. You also said, One of the great things about Wikipedia is that how articles are written depends on what is agreeable to all sides on the issue. This is incorrect. Wikipedia is consensus based, but NPOV is not based on representing the opinions of the editors, it's based on representing all sides of the debate, insofar as they are citable. Putting the opinions of wikipedians (i.e. Stevertigo's theory of geostrategy) into articles is original research. Wikipedia exists to represent the state of the argument as it exists outside of Wikipedia (i.e. on written or otherwise citable sources). So let me close with what I said on day one: please please please, please get a source. 207.172.82.219 23:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your'e responding only to selective points and in a selective way, falling back on this notion that I have "read nothing on geostrategy", which isnt true; and furthermore it prejudices any other work in history or the political sciences which explains what events take place. Still you cling to this ridiculous notion that a POV term may rest undefined except by a cliche ("means to ends"), or should be limited to the views of an exclusive laundry list of latter day Jonahs and regretful war criminals. Even when a quote explicitly states that geostrategy is about "keeping the rabble in line," a reasonable interpretation of which isnt sufficient for your high standards.

If you want to use a cliche you should instead use "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." Indeed I have read many pages of history, though you seem to be claiming that my failure to read volumes of geostrategy has resulted in my ignorance. Shame on you sir. Again, this title must not limited to strictly Western notions of geostrategy, unless the term is defined as such. I dont object to either including people like Osama bin Laden's concepts of "geostrategy" or simply stating in the lede that the term is used mainly in the context of modern international-scale geopolitics to refer to the planned usage and role of states within the Western economic system, or of other particular states from a more narrowly nationalist perspective.

-Ste|vertigo 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Means to ends" is not a cliche, it's the definition of strategy. The Brzezinski quote is quite explicitly metaphorical in its terminology. Further, as I stated above, taking one geostrategist's views and saying that he represents all geostrategy is incorrect and misleading. Regardless, I have had no objection to placing that quote in the "Definitions" section, because it's one of many definitions. Individual definitions ought to be explored within each geostrategist's section. The intro ought to remain generic, and therefore applicable to all the geostrategists. Finally, I'm not saying that you are ignorant in general, but I am questioning your ability to define a field of work when you've not actually read any of it, and when you refuse to cite any sources whatsoever.207.172.82.219 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Coining "geostrategy"

Who coined "geostrategy"? -Ste|vertigo 04:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, its been weeks since I first asked, so here's my guess; Kennan first used the term "geostrategy" (though of course there are conceptual precedents, parallels, decendents, relations, etc.), most likely as a characteristisation; ie. "geostrategic interests...", rather than how it has come to be used to refer to the logic of empire in the abstract. Hope that helps your search. -Ste|vertigo 01:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not actually sure who first used the term geostrategy. None of the sources I have list the parentage of the term (although I think it's a rather facile permutation of "geopolitics"). Rudolf Kjellen coined "geopolitics" in 1800s, but I wouldn't know who specifically coined "geostrategy." Interesting guess. 207.172.82.219 02:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but alas I cant source my guess. We seem to have been talking apples and oranges, so I thought it might be a good idea to know who that person was who first facilely permutated it. "The Brzezinski quote is quite explicitly metaphorical in its terminology." Ha! We should ask him about that. -Ste|vertigo 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like his email is here. I say, go for it. 207.172.82.219 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Any luck on sourcing the term yet? -Ste|vertigo 22:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've not run a journal search yet. However, the first instance of its use in Nexis is in an Associated Press wire report from May 25, 1978 by French President Giscard d'Estaing:

The French leader also proposed a meeting by all 35 participants in the 35-nation Helsinki security conference on disarmament in Europe to achieve " a genuine reduction in weapons within the geostrategic complex of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals."

I'm pretty sure this is not the first actual instance of the word's use though.—thames 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've run a journal search and come up with the following:

This approach, as well as the use of the archaisms of march and limes, is inspired by the French theorist of geopolitics, Michel Foucher and his impressive study of the geopolitics of European frontiers. I argue that each of these analytics can be associated with a particular ‘geo-strategy’. Foucher uses the neologism of geostratregy to describe ‘the application of geographical reasoning to the conduct of war and/or to the setting up of a (national) defense scheme’.

This implies that fr:Michel Foucher coined the term "geostrategy." This quote is taken from:

William Walters. "The Frontiers of the European Union: A Geostrategic Perspective." Geopolitics, Vol.9, No.3, (Autumn 2004) pp.674–698, Copyright © Taylor & Francis, Inc., ISSN: 1465-0045 print, DOI : 10.1080/14650040490478738

And the Foucher quote is footnoted as from:

M. Foucher, ‘The Geopolitics of Frontlines and Borderlines’, in Jacques Lévy (ed.), From Geopolitics to Global Politics: A French Connection (London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass 2001) p.165.

I don't know how authoritative Walters' sourcing of Foucher is. The book the "neologism" appears in is from 2001, which is well after the d'Estaing use and Brzezinski use of the term. Perhaps Foucher coined the term earlier and is simply using it again in the 2001 piece. Hard to tell right now. I'll keep looking. You making any headway?—thames 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but this seems to be on the right track. I think youre misreading Walter's use of "neologism" as an attribution. Foucher is clearly too young IMHO. -Ste|vertigo 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)P.S:This is interesting. Off topic of course. -SV

I may have found a document indicating the coining of the term "geo-strategy". The Geopolitics of War: Total War and Geostrategy - Andrew Gyorgy. It's a 1943 article. Check the bottom footnote on the first page. It says that "geo-strategy" was an attempt by Frederick L. Schuman in translating the German word Wehrgeopolitik coined by Karl Haushofer. Other translations of that word had been "defense geopolitics" or "war geopolitics".—Perceval 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Lede

Percy's version

SV's version

Geostrategy is a subfield of geopolitics. As with all strategies, geostrategy is concerned with matching means to ends—in this case, a country's resources (whether they are limited or extensive) with its geopolitical objectives (which can be local, regional, or global). According to Gray and Sloan, geography is "the mother of strategy." Geostrategists, as distinct from geopoliticians, advocate proactive strategies, and approach geopolitics from a nationalist point-of-view. As with all political theories, geostrategies are relevant principally to the context in which they were devised: the nationality of the strategist, the strength of his or her country's resources, the scope of their country's goals, the political geography of the time period, and the technological factors that affect military, political, economic, and cultural engagement. Many geostrategists are also geographers, specializing in subfields of geography, such as "human geography", "political geography", "economic geography", "cultural geography", "military geography", and "strategic geography". Geostrategy is most closely related to strategic geography. Critics of geostrategy have asserted that it is a pseudoscientific gloss used by dominant nations to justify imperialist or hegemonic aspirations, or that it has been rendered irrelevant because of technological advances, or that its essentialist focus on geography leads geostrategists to incorrect conclusions about the conduct of foreign policy.

In geopolitics, geostrategy refers to foreign policy motivated by a desire for the control of foreign geographic resources. In the language of geostrategists, geostrategy is like all strategies in that it is concerned with "matching means to ends." "Oil geostrategy" and "global energy policy", for example, are largely synonymous with "petroleum politics." Geostrategists advocate proactive strategies, and approach geopolitics from a nationalist point-of-view. As with all political theory, geostrategy are relevant principally to the context in which they were devised —the nationality of the strategist, the strength of their native country's resources, the scope of their country's goals, the political geography of the time period, and the technological factors that affect military, political, economic, and cultural engagement. Hence geostrategists are typically associated with globalization and work for nations or agencies which seek to increase control and thereby profit from transactions of material resources in supplying (ie. "matching") large scale economic "demands". Because relative national strength and dominance (economic and military) are intrinsic to any operable concepts of "strategy," anti-globalisation critics of geostrategy assert that "geostrategy" is a pseudoscientific gloss for used by dominant nations to justify imperialist or hegemonic aspirations. Another criticism is that geostrategy's essentialist focus on geography leads geostrategists to incorrect conclusions about the conduct of foreign policy. Many geostrategists are also geographers, specializing in subfields of geography, such as "human geography", "political geography", "economic geography", "cultural geography", "military geography", and "strategic geography".

Steve, I have been quite clear about my objections to your text. In fact, my objections to your text have been basically the same over the past four months:

• You present your personal criticisms as if they were fact; and,
• You refuse to do any research whatsoever to contribute to this article, and have not brought a *single* reference to cite.

Every time you submit an edit to any Wikipedia article, it states in bold text that encyclopedic content must be verifiable. That means being able to cite it in a reliable source. As a fellow administrator you ought to be well familiar with this standard. I'm surprised you've gone on so long. If you would like to take this conflict to Arbitration, by all means do so, because I have little doubt that they will side with official Wikipedia policy. As long as you make openly-POV edits without any sources I will revert those changes.—Perceval 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

References

RfM

RfM on lede issue: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Geostrategy

Thakur Sher Singh Parmar

Coolcoolcoolest, I'm excited about your enthusiasm for geostrategy. However, I'm concerned that Thakur Sher Singh Parmar is not notable enough for such a large inclusion into the article text. A google search for Mr. Parmar yields only 5 non-Wikipedia websites mentioning him: [2]. Moreover, a Google Scholar search yields no results at all for him: [3]. All the other major geostrategists have 100+ links in Google Scholar. I think Mr. Parmar's theory ought to remain on his own article page, or on the Indian geostrategy page (which I'm quite enthusiastic about), until it has withstood the test of time.—Perceval 07:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Conglomerate quote removed

-Ste|vertigo 00:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• "[As with all strategies], geostrategy is concerned with matching means to ends"—in this case, a country's resources (whether they are limited or extensive) with its geopolitical objectives (which can be local, regional, or global). According to Gray and Sloan, geography is "the mother of strategy."

References

P

In "Mahan's book The Problem of Asia"... "he laid out the first geostrategy of the modern era."Strategy = defining the problem? - Ste|vertigo 00:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Solving the "problem" of Asia was the goal, the strategy was his proposed alliances and policies (predicated on a geographic analysis of where the various great powers were and what they controlled and where they were likely to expand).—Perceval 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"predicated on a geographic analysis of where the various great powers were and what they controlled and where they were likely to expand" - this belongs in the article lede. -Ste|vertigo 06:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

File:Halford Mackinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Halford Mackinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geostrategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100424042233/http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu:80/2010/03/14/think-again-european-geostrategy/ to http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2010/03/14/think-again-european-geostrategy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305174521/http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201979%20and%20earlier/Democratic%20Ideals%20and%20Reality%20-%201942/DIR.pdf to http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201979%20and%20earlier/Democratic%20Ideals%20and%20Reality%20-%201942/DIR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geostrategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2010/03/14/think-again-european-geostrategy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305174521/http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201979%20and%20earlier/Democratic%20Ideals%20and%20Reality%20-%201942/DIR.pdf to http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books%20-%201979%20and%20earlier/Democratic%20Ideals%20and%20Reality%20-%201942/DIR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)