Introduction to Geopolitics

homo
sacer
—a category of people deemed beyond the sacred (and so not worthy of sacrifice
to the gods) but also outside juridical law (and so could be killed with impunity). The
mixture of profane and beyond legal protection results in categories of people that may
be killed with little thought, guilt, or control by established institutions. Gregory (2004)
argues that the representation of the War on Terrorism as a crusade of good against evil
has facilitated geopolitical spaces where the US can use its overwhelming firepower
with impunity, notably in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The War on Terrorism
is viewed as a construct that facilitates the global presence and military actions of the
world leader, and also justifies killing large numbers of people, many—if not most—
civilians, in the name of “global order.”
1111
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
91
10
1
2
31111
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4222
5111
G E O P O L I T I C A L   M E T A G E O G R A P H I E S
185

---

Global visions technologically enhanced
The second major implication of the way the War on Terrorism is being fought lies in
the usage of surveillance strategies, and their connection to remotely controlled
weaponry. As we discussed in Chapter 1, a key component of modern geopolitics is the
ability to envision the whole globe. The desire of geopoliticians has always been to
“map” the world; mapping in this sense is a proclamation of having understood the basic
processes and features of the world. In other words, a claim to knowing how the world
works. From the earliest cartographic visions to the creation of “theories” of world
conflict and the “natural” behavior of states, geopoliticians have always proclaimed an
ability to “see” the world as a unified entity with identifiable structures and processes.
The trick of the geopolitician was to portray these understandings as being “objective”
and then using them to justify or exhort particular actions for their state: Mackinder’s
imperial urges and Mahan’s calculated need for a strong navy, for example.
The technological advances in surveillance have changed the imperative to “map”
through theory. The world can be observed to a much greater degree now than in the
past. Real-time observations across the globe are possible through satellite images. The
global vision is technologically possible. What is still required is the ideological under-
standings that can make sense of the map, and it is here that the representation of
geopolitical codes remains a vital component of the War on Terrorism.
Summary and segue
The interrelated geographies of the fourth wave of terrorism and the War on Terrorism
have illuminated some key points. The geography of contemporary terrorism manifests
itself in both interstate cooperation and ideology that transcends the state while still
retaining connections to the state as a geopolitical structure. The internationalization of
terrorism requires a consideration of the interaction between two metageographies:
networks and states. It is not the case of network geographies usurping or eradicating
state geopolitics, but an antagonistic relationship between the two. Terrorist networks
require, to some degree, the territorial sovereignty of states and state counter-terrorism
cooperates across boundaries and also may violate them. Finally, the War on Terrorism
is a geopolitics of these metageographies that may be interpreted within the broader
structure of world leadership.
Identifying the geography of terrorism and counter-terrorism illuminates that 
there are many uncertainties and unknowns within a structural approach to geopolitics.
The form of agency is far from determined. All that a structural approach can do is
suggest some parameters for what may occur and an overarching context to try to explain
what does happen. The concluding chapter explores the “messiness” of geopolitics
further.
I N T R O D U C T I O N   T O   G E O P O L I T I C S
186

---

Having read this chapter you will be able to:
■
consider the geopolitics of globalization;
■
locate the geopolitics of globalization within Modelski’s model;
■
identify the geography of contemporary terrorism;
■
identify the geography of contemporary counter-terrorism;
■
consider the geographic mismatch of terrorism and counter-terrorism;
■
situate anti-US terrorism and the War on Terrorism within Modelski’s
model of global geopolitics.
Further reading
Flint, C. (2005) “Dynamic Metageographies of Terrorism: The Spatial Challenges of
Religious Terrorism and the ‘War on Terrorism’ ” in Flint, C. (ed.)