
The Geopolitics of the United States - pcrh
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics-united-states-part-1-inevitable-empire
======
astrofinch
The CEO of Stratfor wrote a book called "The Coming War with Japan" in 1991:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman>

After I told him this a few months ago when we were talking about this
article, my dad read it a little more critically and found at least one
blatant factual error. So take it with a grain of salt.

~~~
dsl
I read publications by Stratfor and similar organizations on a semi-frequent
basis (although I have not read the book in question), and "with a grain of
salt" is an assumed prerequisite.

The authors do not intend to deceive or have lazy fact checkers. Instead the
writings are intentionally speculative and many of the sources are often
speaking off the record or sometimes trying to promote a specific political
agenda (i.e. a Chinese official could have been the source for your stated
fact).

------
molmalo
It's a very interesting read (both part 1 and 2), but I disagree with some
points. For example, the absorption of Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina by
Brazil, having a different culture and language seems very unlikely. What is
much more likely is their alliance through a coalition (that is starting to
take shape with Venezuela becoming full member of Mercosur this week).

Another thing that seems hardly believable is Mexico threatening Usa in 50/100
years (I think that was in part 2).

China falling apart could also mean an economic disaster to America given
their mutual symbiosis nowadays.

And a Russian/Chinese alliance could also become possible eventually if China
starts to have it too hard to access the natural resources they need.

Probably the saddest thing here is the fact that America seems to be condemned
to fight wars all around the world, because of it's own growing interests are
generating more and more dependence in foreign affairs, and thus, creating a
vicious cycle.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
>" _[it] seems hardly believable is Mexico threatening Usa in 50/100 years_ "

Mexico isn't likely to be a threat to the United States in our lifetimes _per
se_. But it's not inconceivable to see a future Mexico infuriated over some
political stance in the United States allying with another power.
Deutschland's plans in the World Wars for the United States alternated between
allying with Mexico against the US to inciting war between the two to bog down
the US [1].

>" _China falling apart could also mean an economic disaster to America_ "

Given that geopolitical power is relative and China is the most likely
regional power with the potential to become a great power one cannot discard
the position that America would be strengthened with a tamer China (similar to
the situation in the 1990s). That said, the world would be worse off (barring
the possibility of a Chinese-American conflict in Asia-Pacific).

>" _a Russian/Chinese alliance could also become possible_ "

A Sino-Russian alliance would be unstable, similar to the Hitler-Stalin
alliance in World War II. They both compete for resources in Russian-
influenced Central Asia and in Northeast Asia. Given Russia's history of using
its energy dominance with Europe as leverage it seems unwise for China to
accede too much control with regards to critical resources to it. Further,
Russia's demographic situation doesn't portend well for it as a great power in
the coming decades.

>" _America seems to be condemned to fight wars all around the world_ "

The United States isn't _condemned_ to fighting wars around the world. Similar
to the UK in times past and Turkey as its emerging today, the US is, as a
geopolitical "island" (a great power amongst no other current or potential
great powers in its region) free to pursue its interests overseas. Take for
example Iraq: the biggest downside to the US is economic and diplomatic. The
Middle East, on the other hand, was set to experience significant geopolitical
volatility regardless of the endeavour's outcome.

I'm not agreeing with the Monograph (nor disagreeing with you) wholeheartedly,
but there is a valid debate to be had on each of these points.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram>

~~~
adventureful
A strong China would be the best thing to happen to America in decades. What
America has lacked, really since the Soviets of the 1960s, is a strong
competitor (another super power).

America would be greatly strengthened by a stronger China. The longer we go
without a super competitor, the weaker we will get.

With a stronger China we might just stop being such a lazy, take-it-all-for-
granted nation, and get back to doing what it takes to make sure the next
generation lives better than the last. It'd be nice just to have a functional
government again, focused on real progress for its people.

------
twelvechairs
This reads to me as a bunch of wild speculation trying to make itself sound
serious by filling itself out with a bunch of random encyclopaedia facts (not
to mention pictures). Not convincing.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
My qualm with Stratfor is they assume the reader has a theoretical foundation
in geopolitics, economics, and military strategy and history. The core they're
running on here is best summarised by John Mearsheimer in _The Tragedy of
Great Power Politics_ [1]. Much of the rest arises from macroeconomics, game
theory, and military strategy.

If nothing else this is valuable in that it follows closely the mindset of the
US intelligence community (and many others, most precisely Russia's and
Eastern Europe's).

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Politics-College-Edition-
Norto...](http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Politics-College-Edition-
Norton/dp/0393978397)

------
guard-of-terra
It is a refreshing point of view. We, the generation of city-dwellers, no
longer understand the foundation upon which our city wealth rests. For us, the
farmland is "an unimportant middle of nowhere" and we see the ultimate worth
in some cities that, if looked from the article's POV, can be easily discarded
without any change in the world power/wealth balance.

It seems that grain meant the same in 19 century that oil means today. And for
grain, you need a lot of territory with population and transportation and
security. With oil it's different, you have to be lucky and here it is:
population isn't that important anymore, neither is territory per se.

~~~
crusso
If oil is so important, then why is there no Middle Eastern superpower?

~~~
guard-of-terra
Oil is important but it does not make you powerful per se.

Oil plus security might. But Middle Eastern countries have no security.

~~~
crusso
Oil and resources in general are only useful to societies that know how to use
them properly. To many countries, oil is a curse:
[http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-
oil...](http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil-
wealth.html)

It's like chess, checkers, risk, go, Starcraft, etc.

You can put a crappy player in a great position on the board, giving them
great "resources". But a significantly better player will often still be able
to win.

Compare North Korea to South Korea. Same culture, same geography, same genetic
pool -- but as a society the North Koreans went horribly horribly wrong. North
Koreans went with a political and economic philosophy (communism) that was and
is far inferior to capitalism.

That's my fundamental disagreement with this article. Human intellect driven
by forces in the culture and society have a great more to do with a country's
"importance" on the geopolitical stage than resources.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Even if you know how to use them properly you might be limited in your ability
to do so due to the weakness of your geopolitical shape.

------
crusso
" So like the Turks, the Americans are not important because of who they are,
but because of where they live."

To make a sweeping generalization like that in the article, you'd have to
ignore the timeline of the founding of America and the massive influx of
people who wanted to be here before anyone even knew about our great resources
or how to use them in a modern sense.

America was recognized all around the world at the time of its founding (and a
bit before, even) because it was a grand experiment in personal liberty under
the rule of law. The resources were a nice bonus, I think, but then again
there have been many counter examples where countries/societies have had
tremendous resources and failed to rise because of it (oil in the Middle
East), or had very little resources and dominated the economic or geopolitical
landscape at one time or another (Japan, Hong Kong, Great Britain, etc.)

If anything, there is a lot of evidence that resources are actually not
helpful or even counter-productive to progress in a society
[http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-
oil...](http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil-
wealth.html).

Look at the historical dominance of societies that were farther away from the
equator vs the most lush areas of the world closer toward it.

The necessary traits for survival when you have a winter (planning for a
shortage of crops, living in close quarters with others by following rules,
reduced tolerance for corruption) combined with the unique (at the time)
notion that individual liberty and free enterprise trumped the tyranny of a
central government played a far greater role in the importance of America than
acreage of contiguous croplands.

Fear not, those of you who think that America's success was all resources and
geography, not discipline and philosophy... America is being brought low
quickly enough. As we've pretty much thrown away most of the restraints on the
Federal Government spelled out in the Constitution, America will be the next
century's counter-example of a nation with great resources but little
importance on the geopolitical stage as we destroy Liberty and the Free
Enterprise system that was the true engine that originally brought America to
power.

~~~
vorg
> America was recognized all around the world at the time of its founding (and
> a bit before, even) because it was a grand experiment in personal liberty
> under the rule of law. The resources were a nice bonus, I think, but then
> again there have been many counter examples where countries/societies have
> had tremendous resources and failed to rise because of it

The article specifically mentions the Mississippi River, and compares the cost
of transport by sea, road, and rail. Control of waterways has always been key
to great power status. Controlling the world's oceans, especially chokepoints
like Panama, Singapore, and Hormuz, lets the US project maritime power.
Controlling the Altantic slave trade gave England, France, and Spain the upper
hand at various times, and big wars were fought for the prize. Joining the
Yellow and Yangtze rivers into one via the Grand Canal around 600ad by the
Sui/Tang dynastry is what propelled China to become the world's greatest power
for a thousand years. The Romans took over the entire Mediterranean, settling
the entire coastline, after smashing Hannibal. And of course, control of the
Nile, Euphrates/Tigris, Indus, and Yellow river basins is what made
agriculture viable in the first place.

It was the abundant crops that allowed some Americans to think about liberty.
An Amerindian displaced from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black
50 yrs ago won't understand any of the "liberty" and "rule of law" there's
been.

~~~
crusso
> It was the abundant crops that allowed some Americans to think about
> liberty.

The funny thing is that you even quoted the part of my post that shows that
what you're saying isn't supported by the facts of the timeline according to a
written historical record.

The first settlers who left Europe mostly left for Liberty -- religious and
otherwise. These were people concerned about Liberty before there even were
colonies. There was no great farmland available. There was no Mississippi.
There weren't even any slaves to leverage as resources. Yet, if you read the
historical records, those early settlers wanted mostly to get away from the
oppressive States of Europe. Freedom was their issue and it was tightly
ingrained in the American culture from the beginning.

Fast-forward to the American Revolution (all about Liberty, read the writings
of the Revolutionaries), and you'll see that these people were fanatics about
restraining the central government long before it even had any interest in
anything outside of the 13 colonies.

> An Amerindian displaced from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black
> 50 yrs ago won't understand any of the "liberty" and "rule of law" there's
> been.

Slavery was horrible and really the poison that was allowed into the US
founding that led to the destruction of the notion of States' Rights when we
fought over the issue during the Civil War. That original sin has pretty much
cost us our Liberty, since after the Federal government forced its supremacy
it broke the ability of States to protect themselves. It shifted the American
power structure from being bottom-up to top-down.

Amerindians were killing and DISPLACING each other over primitive tribal
issues long before we arrived. Unfortunately for them, the European
technological advantage was so great. That said, I like to think that we've
learned a lot as a society as we proved after World War I and beyond where we
never tried to keep by force any land where we fought battles for some cause.

You bring up an unintentionally interesting point: If American resources and
geography were such a societal advantage, then why isn't the Amerindian
culture the most dominant in the world now? They had numbers, access to the
same resources, geographic isolation to protect them from other countries for
centuries, etc. But they never progressed and became "important" as a society.
Even after Europeans showed up and allowed them access to our technology, they
used some of it pragmatically (horses and guns), but they never embraced the
cultural underpinnings that would have allowed them to challenge us.

~~~
vorg
The importance of liberty in American society _today_ is greatly overstated.
You seem to acknowledge that in comments like "we've pretty much thrown away
most of the restraints on the Federal Government spelled out in the
Constitution" regarding the present day, and "That original sin has pretty
much cost us our Liberty" regarding slavery until 150 yrs ago. But perhaps the
original Mayflower and other migrations, and even the constitution, are not
very different from other cultures also.

> Yet, if you read the historical records, those early settlers wanted mostly
> to get away from the oppressive States of Europe

This has happened throughout history many times, from the ancient Greek
diaspora around the Mediterranean to the modern-day Chinese diaspora around
the Pacific rim.

> There was no great farmland available

People from various European states went to Massachusetts and Pennsylvania,
which were fertile.

Where there's land to settle, people go there. The southern Europeans migrated
to South America in large numbers. The Russians migrated across the steppe.
The Polynesians rowed to New Zealand. The coast of North America was no
different, just a lot smaller scale than the Mississippi, which came later.

> after World War I and beyond where we never tried to keep by force any land
> where we fought battles for some cause

why bother keeping any land when you control the world's oceans?

> why isn't the Amerindian culture the most dominant in the world now?

for the same reason humans didn't become dominant anywhere until they
discovered agriculture.

~~~
crusso
> But perhaps the original Mayflower and other migrations, and even the
> constitution, are not very different from other cultures also.

To argue that, you'd really have to ignore thousands of documents written by
the Founding Fathers as well as the Declaration, the Constitution, and the
very actions the Founding Fathers. They could have granted themselves and
their families royalty status. George Washington literally turned down the
offer to be King of the new nation as well as the chance to reign as a
perpetual President.

We have their words to read and their historical deeds to examine to show that
they were nothing like the Greek Diaspora who folded themselves into the
cultures they moved to. They were nothing like the Chinese Diaspora who had no
culture, history, or even writings that I could Google that expressed even the
remotest philosophy of Democracy or Individual Sovereignty.

> for the same reason humans didn't become dominant anywhere until they
> discovered agriculture.

But agriculture is just an idea. The main thesis of the article is that
resources made America important. That's not true. The resources were here
before the Euro-American settlers were. It was the ideas and the culture to
use them that made the resources anything more than "worthless" empty fields.

~~~
vorg
> George Washington literally turned down the offer to be King

as did Mao Zedong, who could've turned China into a defacto Emperorship like
North Korea.

Some countries/peoples talk about "Freedom" with religious fervor, others talk
about "The People" with religious fervor, but it's all just a narrative
constructed to unite a people.

~~~
crusso
>> George Washington literally turned down the offer to be King

>as did Mao Zedong

Okay, that's downright disingenuous trolling. Mao ruled for over 30 years and
then handed over power to his hand-picked successor. Mao killed over 50
MILLION of his own people in order to hold on to his power.

Equating George Washington's action in turning down power to Mao's while
ignoring the historical record of both of their actions has got to be
intentional.

~~~
vorg
This tit-for-tat has gotten far away from what the article says. I stand by my
previous claim that...

"The article specifically mentions the Mississippi River, and compares the
cost of transport by sea, road, and rail. Control of waterways has always been
key to great power status. Controlling the world's oceans, especially
chokepoints like Panama, Singapore, and Hormuz, lets the US project maritime
power. Controlling the Altantic slave trade gave England, France, and Spain
the upper hand at various times, and big wars were fought for the prize.
Joining the Yellow and Yangtze rivers into one via the Grand Canal around
600ad by the Sui/Tang dynastry is what propelled China to become the world's
greatest power for a thousand years. The Romans took over the entire
Mediterranean, settling the entire coastline, after smashing Hannibal. And of
course, control of the Nile, Euphrates/Tigris, Indus, and Yellow river basins
is what made agriculture viable in the first place. It was the abundant crops
that allowed some Americans to think about liberty. An Amerindian displaced
from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black 50 yrs ago won't
understand any of the liberty and rule of law there's been."

------
tokenadult
A much more interesting (and less political) article than I expected from the
headline. I grew up in and am best traveled in precisely the region that is
featured in the article, the "Greater Mississippi Basin." My home town
straddles the border between the original Treaty of Paris territory of the
United States and the Louisiana Purchase territory. So the article's argument
that where rivers flow and which rivers connect to which other rivers has much
to do with the prosperity and the strategic aims of the United States is very
interesting. Those of you joining in this discussion may find it particularly
interesting to read the special section on London in the June 30th-July 6th
issue of The Economist, with its discussion of the rise and fall and rise
again of London as a prosperous, world-leading city. The article submitted
here mentions mostly geographical factors as an influence on national strength
and prosperity, while the section in this week's The Economist focuses on the
legal and cultural framework of a country making a huge difference in the
country's development, even when geography stays the same.

The discussion of United States history since the founding of the United
States in the article brings to mind often forgotten facts. The territorial
expansion of the United States as a unified political grouping had to take
advantage of the Mississippi River basin as a matter of first importance. The
article mentions building paved roads (the Cumberland Road) and neglects the
history of canal projects in the United States while mentioning canals in
other places. Of course the cost advantage of water transport via natural
watercourses continues to this day, and has been very influential in world
history. Thomas Sowell points out that Africa has exceptionally few rivers
that are navigable all the way to a harbor on a seacoast compared to other
continents, and very few rivers that are navigable at all. That constrained
the development of trade networks in Africa and the development of many other
learned cultural attributes of what countries with navigable rivers call
"civilization." China developed early along navigable rivers that lead to the
sea, and when the United States was settled by seafaring Europeans from
trading cultures, its course of development was largely set.

The legal and cultural factors shaping national development should not be
underestimated. In the 1770s, as the United States was breaking away from
Britain, the world's greatest political scientists mostly wrote in English and
lived in Britain or America. At the same time, the world's greatest
mathematician (Leonhard Euler) was living in Russia, teaching the first of
many generations of great Russian mathematicians. The United States, messy as
its system is, has long benefited from the draw that freedom and democracy
give the country to bring in talented people from around the world. More than
half of all Americans are descended from ancestors who arrived in North
America not speaking English (as is true of more than half of my ancestors),
but day by day freedom with opportunity for voting and public expression of
opinions on issues and an economy based largely on Adam Smith's principle of
free trade joined together disparate groups of immigrants into a unified
national population.

For the future, I don't think that the United States has any need to encourage
fission or strife among countries on the Eurasian land mass, contrary to what
the submitted article suggests. Rather, the United States can go on promoting
what really has done the most to contribute to its national strength:
democracy, civil liberties, free trade, and the rule of law. Those disruptive
ideas do much to bring peace and stability to other countries and to remove
the threat of war. "American identity" is an identity based on shared ideas,
and as Abraham Lincoln noted in the Gettysburg address, "government of the
people, by the people, and for the people" is an idea that can spread around
the world far beyond the borders of the United States. Whatever the geographic
conditions, everyone lives better where they can express dissent without fear
of a government death squad and vote in new leaders from time to time.

~~~
adventureful
"Can go on promoting," should be changed to: "get back to living by."

Our government is currently busy abusing and or destroying all of the things
that made it a great country.

We don't need to shovel those ideas on other people as much as we need to
stand for them again. Leading by example is radically more powerful than
trying to tell people to do what I say but not what I do.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I don't think the current level of abuse and hypocrisy is greater than in the
past hundred years. The us has always preached freedom and democracy while
conducting secret wars, openly supporting utterly horrific dictatorships etc
etc

I remain to be convinced it is a lot worse than previously, and most of the
world still tends to believe Churchill's maxim - democracy is the worst form
of government, apart from all the others

Tl dr - keep insisting on an end to torture sure, but don't say it was better
in the old days.

------
jezclaremurugan
Future wars (all out wars, like WW I and WW II) won't be fought
conventionally. US _is still_ the _only superpower_ , but, the listed
advantages are not all that beneficial currently. US will win because it leads
in the non conventional weapons tech but not due to the geography. But I agree
it was geography which brought it so far.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
This logic holds because geography is presently immutable. Imagine a future
with a hypothetical weapon that changes an area's geography (yes, it's a leap,
but we need it to disentangle geography and weapons capabilities). Suddenly
the United States is left with Sub-Saharan African deserts or Anatolian
mountains. The economic productivity of the nation would plummet leading to a
decreased ability to maintain a military advantage.

The thought experiment could be tamed a bit by substituting climate change as
the geographical change agent.

~~~
stfu
Just two thoughts that might be related to that idea:

(1) I would argue that these changes are rarely absolute but always in a
comparative context. For example if such a weapon would come into existence,
it wouldn't exist very long in a proprietary form but other nations would
reproduce it. But if we are talking about such substantial climate change, I
would suspect that the negative consequences are going to impact many nations
at the same time, i.e. an overall downward spiral would set in. Or just very
specific regions (i.e. coastal lines).

(2) If we are talking about "just" specific regions, or "just" an American
desert, the example of Israel demonstrates that with enough resources and
willpower it is possible to survive even in an almost desert based
environment. Sure, Israel gets quite a few subsidies and support by other
nations, but never the less they put them to excellent use and demonstrated
that it is possible to "run" a successful economy despite substantial natural
challenges.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Interesting points. My argument was that geography plays as massive a role in
geopolitics today as as ever - we just don't see it because it doesn't vary as
much in our lifetimes as the more minor components, e.g. cultural factors.
Sort of like how stock analysts tend to over-attribute company management for
effects of macroeconomic forces.

Given the diversity in geographies and a bounded "sweet spot" for productivity
(by presently known means) I would argue that a global event would not have
uniform effects on all nations. For example, global warming would devastate
the Chinese and Indian breadbaskets while opening up Siberia and Greenland to
agriculture.

My usage of a weapon, which being technology would be replicated by others
over time, was flawed. Oops =P.

Regarding Israel, I don't think the conclusion from geopolitics is that
geography is a limiting factor in a nation's potential. Israel has exploited
its human capital expertly. That said, given its present borders it will tend
to be a client state of an outside power; its geopolitical situation is highly
leveraged in that the loss of American military and economic backing would
spell existential chaos for it. Singapore, Taiwan, Luxembourg, et al do very
well by this model. But their sovereignty is, at the end of the day,
subordinated to an outsider's. Further, not everyone in the world can follow
this strategy (it would be too easy for one to start shooting and upset the
illusion of stability).

~~~
hollerith
>global warming would devastate the Chinese and Indian breadbaskets while
opening up Siberia and Greenland to agriculture.

There's a great deal of land in the Far North, but I think most of its topsoil
has been scraped off by glaciers.

~~~
pcrh
In Greenland possibly, but not in Canada or Siberia.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
"most of the topsoil" is relative on this context. In Canada and Scandinavia
there is nearly no topsoil left compared to regions which haven't gone through
repeated glaciations. However what is there is sufficient to grow food. Yes, I
am a geologist.

~~~
hollerith
What about northern Siberia? Is there more topsoil there than at similar
latitudes in Canada and Scandinavia?

ADDED. I have a tentative answer to my own question: glaciers probably cannot
push topsoil over mountains, which is probably why there is farming in
Alberta, Canada, at latitudes where there is no farming in Quebec. (The
Rockies take a big zap westward there.) Since there are lots of mountains
running east-to-west in western Siberia, there are probably regions rich in
topsoil north of those mountains, but not in eastern Siberia, and not in the
high latitudes of European Russia.

Unless in the regions north of those west-east mountains, the presence of the
mountains caused the glaciers to flow from south to north. hmm.

------
anuraj
Dominance requires sound economics - and this is what will determine the
future course of history. Lookout for China, it is not falling aprt - but will
be the economic superpower of the world by 2018. And beware of India, which
will relegate the US to third spot by 2030. And let us talk then!

~~~
adventureful
The law of big numbers is harder to climb than the projectors would ever like
to admit. Which is why the Japanese and German 'miracle' economies of the mid
1960s-1980s didn't lead to either of them becoming super powers.

China and India will have a much harder road than most are willing to admit.
India is already displaying massive political paralysis, with an economy that
has stopped growing properly. China is taking on very large amounts of debt
domestically, with national growth that has slowed considerably (and some
would say dramatically, as numbers are being lied about at a local level to
falsify growth according to a recent NY Times article). If you run what may in
fact be 4% to 5% national growth against their inflation rate, the Chinese
economy has all but stopped growing (which explains the massive sitting hoards
of commodities at their distribution points that are going unused and the
collapse in electricity usage). China had to instigate a huge real estate
bubble to keep their economy going, using substantial stimulus to generate
'growth.' As those imbalances in their economy adjust, growth will be harder
and harder to come by. Studies have shown that for each dollar of investment
that China makes, they're getting radically less growth out of it than they
were 10 or 15 years ago.

