7 ms·

The Geopolitics of the United States

103 points by pcrh 14y ago

molmalo 14y ago
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.
- cturner 14y ago
  I think this narrative of food-bowl control is so enticing to people who think about power that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. "Everything is linked to control of food bowls!" People believe in it and then act on it, and only then does it become kind of accurate (apart from South America, and all those successful countries who don't have a food bowl). Russia, America, China could all decide at any time to sell things and just focus internally and they'd break the narrative further.
  - JumpCrisscross 14y ago
    What you're describing is an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) [1]. If you've played the board game Risk you have an intuition for this prisoner's dilemma solution. In Risk there are two tendencies that tend to emerge: everyone gets a continent or nobody gets a continent. In the former the player(s) who resist the ESS by not acquiring continents are left with diminished armies and quickly eliminated. In the latter the player(s) who resist the ESS by attempting to acquire continents are rapidly allied against by the others. The ESS involves random psychology within the constraints of geopolitically fundamentally dictated equilibria. The agents, in this case nations, tend towards one of those equilibria by acting independently on limited information about others' intentions. The dominant equilibrium then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as you have observed. It does not follow, however, that there is no rational basis for the phenomenon. There is also no known mechanism outside a supranational authority with enforcement capability to force a shift from one equilibrium to another. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  >"[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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
  - adventureful 14y ago
    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.
jezclaremurugan 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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).
twelvechairs 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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-Norton/dp/0393978397 http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Politics-College-Edition-Norto...
tokenadult 14y ago
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.
anuraj 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
astrofinch 14y ago
The CEO of Stratfor wrote a book called "The Coming War with Japan" in 1991: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman 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 14y ago
  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).
crusso 14y ago
" 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-wealth.html http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil.... 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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- vorg 14y ago
  > 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.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
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 14y ago
  If oil is so important, then why is there no Middle Eastern superpower?
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    Oil is important but it does not make you powerful per se. Oil plus security might. But Middle Eastern countries have no security.
    - crusso 14y ago
      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-wealth.html http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil... 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.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

103 points by pcrh 14y ago

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.

cturner 14y ago
I think this narrative of food-bowl control is so enticing to people who think about power that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. "Everything is linked to control of food bowls!" People believe in it and then act on it, and only then does it become kind of accurate (apart from South America, and all those successful countries who don't have a food bowl). Russia, America, China could all decide at any time to sell things and just focus internally and they'd break the narrative further.
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  What you're describing is an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) [1]. If you've played the board game Risk you have an intuition for this prisoner's dilemma solution. In Risk there are two tendencies that tend to emerge: everyone gets a continent or nobody gets a continent. In the former the player(s) who resist the ESS by not acquiring continents are left with diminished armies and quickly eliminated. In the latter the player(s) who resist the ESS by attempting to acquire continents are rapidly allied against by the others. The ESS involves random psychology within the constraints of geopolitically fundamentally dictated equilibria. The agents, in this case nations, tend towards one of those equilibria by acting independently on limited information about others' intentions. The dominant equilibrium then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as you have observed. It does not follow, however, that there is no rational basis for the phenomenon. There is also no known mechanism outside a supranational authority with enforcement capability to force a shift from one equilibrium to another. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
>"[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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
- adventureful 14y ago
  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.

jezclaremurugan 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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).

twelvechairs 14y ago

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 14y ago
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-Norton/dp/0393978397 http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Politics-College-Edition-Norto...

tokenadult 14y ago

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.

anuraj 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

astrofinch 14y ago

The CEO of Stratfor wrote a book called "The Coming War with Japan" in 1991: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman 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 14y ago
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).

crusso 14y ago

" 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-wealth.html http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil.... 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.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
vorg 14y ago
> 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.

guard-of-terra 14y ago

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 14y ago
If oil is so important, then why is there no Middle Eastern superpower?
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  Oil is important but it does not make you powerful per se. Oil plus security might. But Middle Eastern countries have no security.
  - crusso 14y ago
    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-wealth.html http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil... 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.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]