[cardguy]

I got switched on to Geopolitics by Webster Tarpley a few years ago.

And I have read a few books on the subject since then - but they seemed pretty dry. I don't mind academic books. But I do mind if they are using alot of pages to say very little. Which is fairly common in academia.

Anyway - I have read some great articles on geopolitics by Webster Tarpley and heard some great lectures by him. But I haven't found any other sources that have being really worthwhile.

I read some books by Zbigniew Brzezinski - but they didn't do much for me to be honest. I have the giant book called Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger. I haven't read it yet - so would be interested to hear if others would recommend reading it?

So - I would love to hear any recommendations for any books or online articles to do with this field.

And later - in a follow up post - I will try and link to some of my favourite Webster Tarpley pieces.

In the meanwhile - these books on a geopolitical type theme are next on my reading list:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-World-Tw...462&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revenge-Geograph...459&sr=1-2

[MorphineBliss]

This one's pretty famous.

http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilization...ilizations

Pretty much explains the neocon strategy in the early 2000s.

edit: the book was written before 11th of september and all the wars and makes some pretty chilling predictions of what was to come.

[kosko]

Eric Draitser is the Man. He was actually a guest contributor on Tarpley's radio show that is how I was introduced. He s strictly Geo-Politics and does a weekly 2-3hr podcast. He gives a good run down of ALL the important stories in ALL regions and how they link together. Not many people talking about Balochistan, or seeing the tides of Mali coming to a heed almost a year ago.

I have other sources I can share via PM.

[Caligula]

For a macro-level historical overview, this will be required reading at most universities soon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Politi...374533229/

This is also great for a big-picture view: http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules---N...312611692/ - his thesis is that all human progress can be explained by fear, greed and laziness. It's a very interesting read. It starts out around 20,000 BC and goes all the way till today.

Both give the kind of bird's eye, historical view that's essential to real understanding of geopolitics. Too much of what you read about geopolitics is either ahistoric (people simply ignore history) or written by people with very narrow frames of reference. Most political science students only really know about the 20th century - possibly the 19th century - but usually not further back than that. The narrative is that anything that happened before Democracy is irrelevant.

For more current stuff it's hard to beat Foreign Affairs: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/

And if you want somewhat gossipy, yet usually smart, geopolitical coverage read the FP Blog: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com - they do a daily Morning Brief which is an at a glance overview of the main developments in the world.

A brilliant academic turned blogger in the field is Stephen Walt - http://walt.foreignpolicy.com - he's very clear-sighted. He's quick to get to the heart of issues and not get blinded by rhetoric or political smokescreens. Here's a good piece he wrote about Hilary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013...ry_clinton

[Caligula]

(02-21-2013 12:26 PM)MorphineBliss Wrote:  

This one's pretty famous.

http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilization...ilizations

Pretty much explains the neocon strategy in the early 2000s.

edit: the book was written before 11th of september and all the wars and makes some pretty chilling predictions of what was to come.

Not really. If you want a better explanation of the neocon worldview you should read Francis Fukuyama's End of History. He argued that the triumph of liberal democracy was inevitable. The neocons took this as meaning that democratising the world by force was destined to succeed since there was no alternative. We know how that worked out.

Huntington's Clash of Civilizations cautioned about the dangers of identity politics and the tensions that they would cause between countries of different civilizations. Huntington himself opposed the Iraq War because he predicted would antagonise the Islamic world.

Funny how a lot of liberals bashed Huntington for wanting to instigate some kind of war with Islam while applauding people like Fukuyama who were calling for war in the name of spreading liberalism and enforcing unenforceable human rights.

As Burke said 'What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or to medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In this deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor.'

It's been the same story ever since the French revolution: every time militant liberals (neocons are in this category) undertake large-scale social engineering there is unforeseen bloodshed. They think they can keep what's good about the old order while adding all the benefits of their new revolutionary vision. It never works out that way.

Edmund Burke warned about it in the 18th century and it's still the same story being replayed today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections..._in_France

Edit - I just realised that to some people 'geopolitics' seems to refer to some underground conspiracy-theory driven view of what's going on in the world. I didn't know that and am not very interested in the rantings of self-proclaimed foreign policy experts. How the world works is much too interesting to be simplified into a bunch of agenda-driven platitudes.

[Teedub]

These threads are great cardguy, and you've been dropping some great posts past couple of days. Really enjoying reading them.

[cardguy]

wow - great responses guys. A ton of interesting links and books to check out there.

And thanks for the kind words, Teedub!

Now - I forgot to mention another favourite writer earlier. He is the Gary Brecher - aka The War Nerd. He is very funny and seems to know about all the wars that have ever taken place. He had a collection of his work collected into a book. And you can see his latest columns here:

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/desk/war-nerd

Anyway - here is one of my favourite columns by him. It is about aircraft carriers and it details his thoughts on why they are useless in modern warfare and will one day lead to the death of thousands of Americans when one gets sunk:

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-thi...die/all/1/

On a similar issue. This column is about a war general who managed to defeat the Americans in a war game even though he had far less firepower than the US:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779

As for Webster Tarpley. Here is a good interview he filmed before Obama became president. It gives some accurate predictions about what later transpired. It is interesting to watch since Tarpley's position is that Obama is even more radical and even more 'neo-con' than George W Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFZmzYr54Zg

Here is Tarpley discussing the US's strategic goal of ultimately playing China off against Russia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFVwH2ICIV4

And here is Tarpley wanring that the Libyan rebels we were supporting were the same terrorists we were fighting in Iraq:

http://tarpley.net/2011/03/24/the-cia%E2...s-in-iraq/

Tarpley was on record about this 22 months before the rest of the media started to address similar concerns:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool...-32645817/

And of course about 18 months after Tarpley's piece you had the US embassy killings in Benghazi.

And lastly - here is a great article by Peter Hitchens which gives a different take on 9/11 than that usually aired in the mainstream media. Firstly - it seems that the US caved in to alot of Osama Bin Laden's demands. And secondly - the main reason for the attack (the US's support for Israel) was played down and practically covered up in the aftermath of 9/11:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...anted.html

Lastly - I will send you a PM, Kosko.

[kdolo]

(02-21-2013 09:14 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

wow - great responses guys. A ton of interesting links and books to check out there.

And thanks for the kind words, Teedub!

Now - I forgot to mention another favourite writer earlier. He is the Gary Brecher - aka The War Nerd. He is very funny and seems to know about all the wars that have ever taken place. He had a collection of his work collected into a book. And you can see his latest columns here:

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/desk/war-nerd

Anyway - here is one of my favourite columns by him. It is about aircraft carriers and it details his thoughts on why they are useless in modern warfare and will one day lead to the death of thousands of Americans when one gets sunk:

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-thi...die/all/1/

On a similar issue. This column is about a war general who managed to defeat the Americans in a war game even though he had far less firepower than the US:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779

As for Webster Tarpley. Here is a good interview he filmed before Obama became president. It gives some accurate predictions about what later transpired. It is interesting to watch since Tarpley's position is that Obama is even more radical and even more 'neo-con' than George W Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFZmzYr54Zg

Here is Tarpley discussing the US's strategic goal of ultimately playing China off against Russia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFVwH2ICIV4

And here is Tarpley wanring that the Libyan rebels we were supporting were the same terrorists we were fighting in Iraq:

http://tarpley.net/2011/03/24/the-cia%E2...s-in-iraq/

Tarpley was on record about this 22 months before the rest of the media started to address similar concerns:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool...-32645817/

And of course about 18 months after Tarpley's piece you had the US embassy killings in Benghazi.

And lastly - here is a great article by Peter Hitchens which gives a different take on 9/11 than that usually aired in the mainstream media. Firstly - it seems that the US caved in to alot of Osama Bin Laden's demands. And secondly - the main reason for the attack (the US's support for Israel) was played down and practically covered up in the aftermath of 9/11:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...anted.html

Lastly - I will send you a PM, Kosko.

wait ... you still believe that 9-11 was committed by Bin Laden, a handful of Arabs and a camel..........

[Fatless]

Sign up for STRATFOR's weekly newsletters. Great reads.

http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-weekly

[cardguy]

I haven't really made my mind up about 9/11 yet.

Although - it is interesting (and little reported) that in the weeks after 9/11 - Osama Bin Laden publicly denied any knowledge of the attacks. But then again he was holed up in Afghanistan at the time and was probably trying to stop the Americans come get him.

Also - there is very little concrete evidence to link Osama Bin Laden to 9/11. I remember awhile ago reading how difficult it would be to convict him in a court of law if he were ever to be caught alive.

Anyway - the link to the Peter Hitchens article above is just an account of how certain factors (like the US agreeing to some of Osama Bin Laden's demands, and the links to the support for Israel and 9/11) are played down in the offical story of 9/11. Even though they cannot be denied.

I am not sure what the average American believes. But - if you believe Osama Bin Laden organised 9/11. You have to understand that American support for Israel was the only reason for it. Israel really is the only reason that the Middle East hates America. It has nothing to do with a 'hatred for our way of life'. That is put out as a myth to distract from the links to Israel (who I happen to support by the way).

Indeed - I have alot in common with Osama Bin Laden. Like him my favourite TV show was The Wonder Years. Like him I love the music of Whitney Houston. And like him I am a big football fan (Bin Laden was an Arsenal supporter who - possibly - used to live in London).

So he really wasn't that bothered about 'our way of life'. Although like all of us - I am sure he had fantasies about how much better it would be if he were one day in charge.

[cardguy]

Here is an excellent comedy lecture on the geopolitics (and history) of oil.

It contains alot of interesting information I have not seen before. And is by a comedian (Robert Newman) who was the biggest comedian in the UK about 20 years ago. But since then he has abandoned stand-up to concentrate on writing and comedy/political lectures like the following:

[DirectDanger]

Do any of you guys subscribe to geopolitical youtube channels that put out some what regular commentary of current events? I have been watching stratfor who put out regular updates.

https://www.youtube.com/user/STRATFORvideo/videos

Here are a few of the recent ones...

Another guy who puts out some interesting stuff is the Caspian Report.

https://www.youtube.com/user/CaspianReport/videos

Can you guys recommend any other youtube channels?

[2Wycked]

Interesting thread.

Grear breakdown by Caligula.

[cardguy]

Adam Curtis says in his excellent documentary 'The Power Of Nightmares' that Osama Bin Laden was originally indicted by the US before 9/11 for Bin Laden's role in the 1998 US embassy bombings (which took place in Tanzania and Kenya). The bombings were designed to commmemorate the 8th anniversary of the arrival of US troops in Saudi Arabia (the US were stationed there during the first Gulf war - and didn't leave until soon after 9/11. Which means Bin Laden did achieve one of his goals).

Indeed - having US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia has always being the prime thing that has annoyed Bin Laden since Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam. And any sense of a Western (and therefore evil) power being stationed there was an outrage to an Islamist like Bin Laden (who was himself born in Saudi Arabia).

At the time - lawyers felt the best way to convict Bin Laden was to use the RICO laws which were originally designed for prosecuting organised crime such as crimes linked to the mafia. It is designed to trace the funding and responsibility of a crime to the top of an organisation so that all those at the top can be prosecuted as well.

But in order to use the RICO laws - the Americans had to literally invent 'Al Qaeda' and show it was a terrorist group with a hierarchy and operational goals. When the truth is that Al Qaeda never existed until that point - but was subsequently used by Bin Laden as a phantom he could use to scare the West with. Which suited the West - since it provided legal cover for them to come after Bin Laden (should he ever be caught) and helped to create the 'lens' through which foreign affairs would be analysed by the media and the world.

Seriously. You all need to watch 'The Power of Nightmares' by Adam Curtis. It is a 3 hour documentary covering the rise of the Neo Cons in America and the rise of Islamic Terrorism (which also had its roots in America as well). Curtis is the most important documentary maker in the world - and is the only good thing about the BBC here in the UK.

http://sophistryandillusion.com/videos/Adam-Curtis/

[LeBeau]

This isn't directly related to Geopolitics specifically, but I'm sure some people in this thread would find a comprehensive overview of Oil useful. It has definitely given me a better understanding of the world as well as the financial side of energy. The top reviews give a great breakdown on why this should be on everyone's shelf:

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0982039204



Also the author posted a unique video on his blog of a whale at a deep sea oil well:

http://scarcewhales.blogspot.ca/