From Military Geography to militarism's geographies: disciplinary engagements with the geographies...

Progress in Human Geography 29, 6 (2005) pp. 1–23

© 2005 Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd 10.1191/0309132505ph579oa

I Introduction: the silent cannonLet me start with two initial observationsabout military geographies, the first personaland the second scholarly. I live in a house onthe side of a hill. From the top floor of thishouse I can see for many miles in most direc-tions. From this vantage point, the geogra-phies of militarism and military activities arevisible everywhere I look. I can see the lines ofnow-redundant defensive barriers and fortifi-cations. I can see an armaments factory, andfactories which function as links the supplychains for the arms industry. I can see placeswhere I know military command posts exist,

and places where I know they lie hiddenunderground. When the skies are very clear,I can see the radomes of a military communi-cations station to the north. I can identifythe location of a major army field trainingcentre, even though from this angle I cannotsee into it. I know that hidden from myview, behind houses and trees, are countlesswar memorials, an Armed Forces CareersOffice, at least three barracks (two regularArmy, one Territorial Army), and a navalstation. If I look on the right day, at the righttime, I can see military convoys trundling upthe motorway which links the region to the

From Military Geography to militarism’sgeographies: disciplinary engagementswith the geographies of militarism and military activities

Rachel WoodwardSchool of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Agriculture Building,University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

Abstract: This paper reviews contemporary approaches in Anglophone human geography to thegeographical constitution and expression of militarism and military activities. Three mainapproaches are identified, and the merits, limitations and insights of each are discussed. Theseare: traditional Military Geography, intimately associated with state military discourses of militarypower; a broad political geography, focused on the spatiality of armed conflict; and research fromacross the social sciences on the political economies and sociocultural geographies of militarism,particularly in nonconflict situations. The paper concludes with some suggestions for furtherempirical and theoretical inquiry, and argues on moral grounds for a human geography explicitlyconcerned with military geographies in all their forms.

Key words: armed conflict, armed forces, defence, militarism, militarization, military geographies,Military Geography, war.

rest of the country to the north and south. Ican see military marks on every part of theview. Yet I don’t live in a current or recentbattle-zone, or in a territory occupied by amilitary force. I don’t live in a garrison town ora military base. I live in a residential suburb ofGateshead in the north of England. Even inotherwise unremarkable places, militarygeographies are everywhere. But often youhave to know where to look.

Military geographies may be everywhere,but they are often subtle, hidden, concealed,or unidentified. And so it is with their study.As others have observed, militarism and itseffects are under-researched in contempo-rary Anglophone1 human geography (and inurban studies and sociology too), relativeto the significance of both militarism andmilitary activities in shaping contemporarytimes and spaces (Shaw, 1991; Ó Tuathail,1996; Dandeker, 2000; Dalby, 2001; Hewitt,2001; Graham, 2004a).2 This observation,with which I concur, is confirmed if one looksat successive editions of The dictionary ofhuman geography.

Consult the Dictionary for main entries onsuch key words as ‘arms’ (or armed anything),‘defence’, ‘military’, ‘militarism’ and ‘war’.These key words are entirely absent, acrossfour successive editions. In the first edition(Johnston, 1981) only ‘defence’ merits anentry in the index, as a public good within adictionary entry on ‘neoclassical economics’.In the second edition (Johnston et al., 1986)the index repeats ‘defence’ and includes only‘war, representation of demographic conse-quences’, leading to an entry on populationpyramids showing the huge impact that thefirst and second world wars had on thepopulation pyramid of contemporary France.In the third edition (Johnston et al.,1994),armed forces, ‘military’ and ‘war’ are againabsent as main entries in the body of thedictionary and there is a gap, where defencemight sit, between ‘deep ecology’ and ‘de-industrialization’, despite defence’s role in thegeographies of both. ‘Military action’ meritsan index entry, but only as an example in a

main entry on ‘catastrophe theory’. ‘Militaryintelligence, geographers in’ refers back to amain entry on ‘applied geography’, highlight-ing the role of geographers in military agencies(of which more later). ‘Military power andurban origins’ refers back to an entry on‘urban origins’ and the role of militarism inancient city foundations. But that is all. Thefourth edition (Johnston et al., 2000), despitea preface highlighting significant new entriesindicative of a changing and violent world(critical geopolitics, ethnic cleansing, global-ization, human rights), still has no mainentries for any of the armed forces, ‘defence’,‘military’ or ‘war’. The index references to‘military action’ and ‘military power’ remain,and the ‘war’ entry is expanded: ‘war, boun-dary dispute as cause’ leads back to the ‘sover-eignty’ entry; ‘war, geographers’ role during’leads back to ‘applied geography’; ‘war andsense of place’ leads back to ‘sense of place’and the significance of battlefield andmonuments; ‘war memorials’ leads back to‘monuments’.

The Dictionary is two things. First, it isof course a dictionary, an invaluable andreliable reference book providing definitionsof the topics, concepts, theories and methodscirculating in contemporary human geogra-phy. Secondly, the Dictionary has becomesomething of a definitional text, establishingthe parameters and remit of the contempo-rary discipline of (broadly, Anglophone)human geography. Successive editions haveincreased the numbers of entries as the disci-pline has grown and evolved over the 20 yearsseparating the first and fourth editions. Overthis time the Dictionary has emerged as apowerful tool in the definition of human geo-graphy, what it is – and, through its silences,what it is not. Militarism and military activi-ties, and their associates (defence, armedanything, war) don’t merit a main entry (seealso Mamadouh, 2005, on this point). Theyare only discernible at the margins, wherethey exist in the index as footnotes to differ-ent stories.3 Like the view from my window,these index entries hint at the multiplicity and

2 From Military Geography to militarism’s geographies

ubiquity of military geographies, and theyprovide some clues to where disciplinaryengagement lies. But you have to knowwhere to look.

The purpose of this paper is to arguefor greater visibility within the discipline ofGeography of the geographies of militarismand military activities. It reviews the domi-nant contemporary approaches to militaryissues in Anglophone human geography, andargues for a critical approach to the study ofthe geographies of militarism and militaryactivities that is capable of understandingtheir full geographical constitution and expres-sion. The first approach discussed is tradi-tional Military Geography, a subfield of thediscipline aimed explicitly at the application ofgeographical tools and techniques to the solu-tion of military problems. Military Geography,I argue, is limited by the narrowness of its fieldof vision and by its close identification withthe military objectives of the state, whichrestricts its abilities to grasp fully the disparateand contested geographies of militarismand military activity. The second approachdiscussed is that which understands thegeography of militarism and military activitiesin terms of the spatiality of armed conflict,predominantly (although not exclusively) thatemanating from self-identified political geo-graphy. Existing studies, I argue, are signifi-cant for their insights into the geopoliticalcauses and consequences of armed conflictin shaping the world, but are less helpful ingenerating a fuller understanding of theextent to which militarism and militaryactivities imprint themselves onto social andspatial relations. The third approach discussedis that of an emergent critical military geogra-phy that, while recognizing the significance ofarmed conflict, looks beyond it for what thistells us about the wider geographical imprintof militarism and military activities. I selectfor discussion literatures (self-consciouslyGeographical or otherwise) on issues relatingto the politics of military land use, the politicaleconomies and social geographies of a mili-tary presence, and the cultural geographies of

military representation. The paper concludeswith a speculative explanation for the relativeinvisibility of some military issues within con-temporary Anglophone human geography,and suggests two avenues for conceptual andempirical research to take a critical militarygeography further. I end by arguing forthe moral necessity of a politically engagedmilitary geography as a feature of both con-temporary human geographical scholarship,and as an essential component of tertiarygeographical education.

In this paper, I define ‘military geographies’as the geographies both constituted andexpressed by military activities and militarism.This definition draws on the work of theoristsof militarism, between whom there is debateabout the meaning of the term. Some – Smithand Smith (1983), for example – prefer tosee ‘militarism’ as a descriptive rather thanan analytic term, defining militarism asthe effects of various causes, rather than thecause of various effects. They justify thisapproach with an observation about the hugevariety of outcomes and processes that theterm ‘militarism’ refers to, from high militaryspending to government by martial law. Analternative and more dominant conceptual-ization understands militarism as an analyticterm denoting the extension of militaryinfluence into civilian social, political andeconomic spheres (Thee, 1980), a temporallyand spatially contingent process (Shaw, 1991;Carlton, 2001), that normalizes war andpreparations for war (Mann, 1988; Keeble,1997). Militarism is understood therefore as aprocess with an effect, and it is the analyticdefinition of militarism that is used here inorder to place emphasis on the executivepower of militarism. This definition can berefined further. Johnson (2004), in his corus-cating analysis of contemporary US imperial-ism, draws on the work of Vagts (1959) tomake a finer distinction between ‘military’(the things a nation requires for defence) and‘militarism’ (the prioritizing of the institutionalpromotion and preservation of a nation’sarmed forces). This distinction is useful when

Rachel Woodward 3

teasing out military geographies. FollowingJohnson, I would argue that we can distin-guish both:• geographies of military activities, as the

patterning of material entities and socialrelations across space shaped by theproduction and reproduction of militarycapabilities; and

• geographies of militarism, as the shapingof civilian space and social relations bymilitary objectives, rationales and struc-tures, either as part of the deliberateextension of military influence into civilianspheres of life and the prioritising ofmilitary institutions, or as a byproduct ofthose processes.

The intention behind this paper is not to dwellhere on distinctions between the geographiesof militarism and those of military activities,but rather to explore how both constitutewhat I term ‘military geographies’. Nor is thispaper an attempt to provide a theory ofmilitarism – its sociology, political economyor politics – as a geographical practice.The intention is to review how militarism’sinherent spatiality – its effects on spaces,places, environments and landscapes –has been approached by the discipline ofgeography.

II Military Geography4

The Dictionary of human geography’s silenceabout ‘military geography’ is indicative ofa deep ambivalence within the disciplineabout Geography’s engagement with militarymatters. Anglophone geography is not alonein having a history and a present of engage-ment with the military objectives of the state.Examples include general accounts of geo-graphy’s disciplinary connections to empire(Unwin, 1992; Godlewska and Smith, 1994;Bell et al., 1995; Livingstone, 1998; Mayhew,2000; Jones and Philips, 2005; Mamadouh,2005), and specific accounts of the statemilitary/geographical disciplinary nexus inFrench and German (see Heffernan,1994; 1998; Clout, 2004; and particularlyMamadouh, 2005, who deals extensively

with these traditions), Latin American(Harvey, 1974; Radcliffe and Westwood,1996; Radcliffe, 1999; Hewitt, 2001), Israeli(Falah, 1994), Arab world (El-Bushra andMuhammadain, 1992; Hanafi, 1992) andIranian geographies (Kashani-Sabet, 1998).Geography and geographers the world overhave long been of service to state and/orempire, political entities which have longbeen associated with the pursuit of militaryviolence.

In Britain, the foundation of the RoyalGeographical Society in 1830 was closelybound to the territorial ambitions of theBritish state, ambitions expressed throughmilitary power and control. This connectionwas manifest both in the activities of theSociety in guiding imperial expansion withknowledge of the places forced or coercedinto Empire, and also through the close con-nections of its personnel with the militaryestablishment (Freeman, 1980; Unwin, 1992;Driver, 2000). This close relationship contin-ued into the twentieth century, particularlyduring wartime, through the engagement ofGeographers in producing descriptions of theworld for military and related purposes(see, for example, May, 1909; MacDonnell,1911; Cornish, 1916; 1918; Salt, 1925; Cole,1930; for recent reflections on the wartimeroles of geography and geographers in Britain,see Stoddart, 1992; Heffernan, 1996; 2000;Clout and Gosme, 2003). Yet a self-consciousMilitary Geography failed to root in the UKfrom these origins. The disciplinary history inthe USA is rather different. A School ofGeography, History and Ethics was foundedat the United States Military Academy WestPoint in 1818 (Unwin, 1992). This initiated theincorporation of geographers and the pursuitof geographical knowledge at the heart ofthe US military, in the State Departmentand the United States Military Academy,in wartime and beyond (see Unwin,1992; Harris, 1997; Smith, 2002). MilitaryGeography exists in the USA as a self-conscious subdiscipline, with disciplinarystatus through its specialty group within the


discipline’s professional association, theAssociation of American Geographers, andclose ties remain between the subdisciplineand the military (and I return to this below).

What is Military Geography, exactly?Palka and Galgano define it as ‘the applicationof geographic information, tools, and tech-niques to military problems’ (Palka andGalgano, 2000: xi), and there is little in theMilitary Geography literature that woulddispute the accuracy of this definition.Contemporary Military Geography scholar-ship has two dominant foci. The first is thestudy of the effects of the physical environ-ment on military strategy – the ‘terrain andtactics’ approach. Although not exclusivelyhistorical, much of the scholarship in thistradition seeks to analyse past militaryencounters in terms of the physical environ-ment of the battlefield (see, for example,O’Sullivan and Miller, 1983; O’Sullivan, 1991;2001; Winters et al., 1998; Collins, 1998;Galgano, 2000; Henderson, 2000; Grabau,2000; Lindberg and Todd, 2001; Stephenson,2003). We should note that explorations of‘terrain and tactics’ are not the sole preserveof those who call themselves ‘MilitaryGeographers’ – see, for example, Doyle andBennett’s evaluations of terrain in key firstworld war campaigns (1997; 1999), and Doyleand Bennett’s edited collection of essays onterrain issues (2002). However, this ‘terrainand tactics’ approach, informed by normativeassumptions about warfare, and deployingdetailed description to explain the outcomesof particular tactics and geopolitical strategies(see Gray and Sloan, 1999), sits comfortablywithin Military Geography’s definition of itselfas an applied discipline. The teaching ofstrategy and tactics, using geographicalinformation, is a staple of military trainingacademies such as West Point and the USArmy War College.

The second focus of Military Geography isthat suggested by Palka and Galgano’s defini-tion above, in the application of geographicalknowledge to military problems. Exampleswould include Corson’s (2000) discussion

of strategic mobility issues in MilitaryOperations Other Than War contexts; Kinget al.’s (2004) discussion of locational analysisin the identification of tropical sites forweapons testing; the use of GeographicalInformation Systems and remote sensing indefence, training and operations (Herl, 2000;Beck, 2003; contributors to Cutter et al.,2003); assessments of the physical andhuman geography of Iraq (Malinowski, 2003),Afghanistan (Palka, 2004a) and North Korea(Palka, 2004b); and the use of cultural geo-graphical knowledge in military operations(Thompson and Grubbs, 1998).

Military Geography exists as a componentof tertiary studies in some US institutionswithin and beyond the military academy, andis recognized within the institutional struc-tures and disciplinary definitions in the UnitedStates (see Palka, 2004c). However, MilitaryGeography is very much a specialist andminority interest in broader Anglophonehuman geography. It can boast no journal ofits own, no key thinkers of internationalstanding, no wider purchase on academicGeography agendas beyond those mentionedfor which I suggest two reasons.

The first revolves around the evolutionarystasis of Military Geography. It has failed todevelop along the pathways suggested bydevelopments in the wider discipline, leavingit a largely atheoretical, descriptive geographyfloating in the wake of a theory-powered,critical social science. To illustrate: MilitaryGeography was defined in 1899 by T. MillerMaguire as the application of topographicaland environmental knowledge to the conductof military campaigns, and the strategic andtactical considerations to be taken intoaccount (Maguire, 1899). Over the twentiethcentury and into the twenty-first, this under-standing of Military Geography has heldfast, with only minor refinements. So, forexample, Peltier and Pearcy in a keyMilitary Geography textbook define MilitaryGeography as ‘the application of geographicdiscipline in the conduct of military affairs. Itfocuses on the geometry of military situations

Rachel Woodward 5

and on the effect of the location, charac-teristics, and distribution of environments,peoples, forces, and things upon militaryactivities and thus ultimately upon commanddecisions’ (1966: 7). It is defined as beingconcerned with places and regions, theirproperties and differences, physical andsocial, and with the way the efficiency ofmilitary activities or the solution of militaryproblems is influenced because places aredifferent. It is underpinned by a basic assump-tion that through the application of ‘geo-graphic sciences’, military science may gainin precision and predictability. More recentdefinitions differ in detail but little in sub-stance; see Palka and Galgano’s definitionabove. In their state-of-the-subdisciplinecollection (Palka and Galgano, 2000), Peltierand Pearcy’s analytic framework, distinguish-ing between systematic, topical, regionalapproaches, is updated to take account ofthe changing nature of military operations inthe postwar, post-cold war world to includepeacetime and Military Operations OtherThan War (MOOTW) contexts as well aswar, and the scales at which it might focus(strategic, operational, tactical). However, asthe book’s chapters demonstrate, MilitaryGeography has been largely untouched by thepower of concepts and theories so crucial indriving forward scholarship in Geography andother social sciences. The one place whereMilitary Geography might be seen to consti-tute the leading edge is in the developmentof Geographical Information Systems andremote sensing. Indeed, as Cloud (2002)makes clear, our contemporary, civilian,academic applications of GIS tools andtechniques are of military origin.

A second reason for Military Geography’sminority status (and an explanation perhapsfor its evolutionary stasis) revolves aroundthe politics of its stated imperatives as anapplied social science in service to militaryobjectives. Palka and Galgano’s lament istelling, and worth quoting in full:

The demise of military geography amonguniversities and academics coincided with the

widespread social and political unrest thatoccurred in America during the mid-1960sand early 1970s. During that era, anti-warsentiments and a general mistrust of thefederal government prompted geographersto become increasingly concerned withbeing socially, morally, and ecologically respon-sible in their research efforts and profes-sional affiliations with government agencies.Contributing to the war effort in Vietnamcame to be regarded as irresponsible by manymembers of the AAG. The controversysurrounding the Vietnam War cast a persistentshadow on military geography as an academicdiscipline throughout the 1970s. (Palka andGalgano, 2000: 3–4)

As they observe, the late 1960s saw in NorthAmerica the emergence of a self-describedradical geography, from the ferment of masspolitical activism, the civil rights movement,the environmental movement and anti-warprotest (Peet, 2000). It is not that radicalgeographers were not alert to the geogra-phies of militarism and military activities –see, for example, Lacoste’s analysis of USbombing strategies on the Red River delta inVietnam (Lacoste, 1973), Massabni (1977) onviolent repression and urban destruction inBeirut, and Roder (1973) on war’s effectsin Angola and Mozambique. But reticenceabout engaging with military institutions,coupled with the pressing political imperativeof engaging with the geographies of othersocial struggles, drove geographers awayfrom Military Geography and, it seems, fromthe study of militarism’s geographies. Thecritiques of logical positivism, the emergenceof Marxist and leftist critiques to the studyof geography, and in turn the structuralistand poststructuralist approaches that havefollowed, provided powerful tools for apolitically engaged human geography. Oneoutcome (of many) has been the emergence(or re-emergence?) of political geography’scritiques of the play of international powerrelations across space, including a criticalgeopolitics with its efforts at illuminating theways in which power – particularly militarypower – is written into and across space(more of this later).


Meanwhile, Military Geography has beenleft standing, concerned only with the contri-butions it can make to the pursuit of militaryobjectives, and guided primarily by positivistapproaches to the study of social relations andspace. Furthermore, the subdiscipline is self-consciously and explicitly ‘applied’, in that itsees itself as an academic field with direct,practical applications to the conduct ofstate-sanctioned, organized violence. MilitaryGeography is intimately bound up with theUS military, and has been since its inception;Eugene Pearcy (co-author of Peltier andPearcy, 1966) was ‘The Geographer’ for theUS State Department, and key positions inthe Military Geography Specialty Grouphave traditionally been held by militaryofficers teaching, for example, at the UnitedStates Military Academy West Point, oracademics working under contract onmilitary-related projects.5 Military Geographyfacilitates the engagement of the defencesector and state military power with the ter-tiary education sector (for critical accounts,see Graham, 2005; Mitchell, 2005).6 MilitaryGeogaphy facilitates military violence. See,for example, Beck’s assertion that his use ofremote sensing was of great utility to the USmilitary in bombing the Zhawar Kili region’scaves during the USA’s military strikes inAfghanistan in late 2001 (Beck, 2003). Seealso the collection edited by Malinowski(2003) presenting Iraq for military consump-tion. Military Geography is intimately tied to,and constitutive of, US military and statediscourses of military power, nation-building,territorial defence and expansion, nationalsovereignty and national security.

Military Geography is thus doubly damnedin the eyes of many, both for being an atheo-retical, positivist backwater, and for beingadjunct to the pursuit of imperial and militarypower (and all the abuses that this entails)through its stated intention of assisting in USmilitary objectives. Many geographers work-ing within critical or radical, Marxist or leftistappraoches would see Military Geography, ascurrently defined, as not just ‘irresponsible’

for geographers, but as incompatible withmore progressive political concerns such as acritique of military and state discourses ofnationhood, security and military power.7

One approach to the study of the geogra-phies of military activities, then, has been thatproposed by Military Geography, which takesin its current form a view of geographicalscholarship as contributory and enabling towider military ambitions and objectives. Thisapproach, representing the fossilized remainsof an older geographical tradition, exists onthe margins of contemporary Anglophonehuman geography, particularly those geogra-phies informed by structuralist and poststruc-turalist critiques of power and social relations,and guided increasingly by a progressive,emancipatory politics critical of the socialconsequences of militarism, the use of mili-tary power and militarization. This, perhaps,explains the Dictionary’s silences; MilitaryGeography is viewed as having little to addto contemporary geographical debates. Toillustrate, let me return to my view from myGateshead window. The question I wouldpose, looking out at a view littered with themarks of militarism and military activities, iswhether the analytic approach suggested byMilitary Geography is useful in explaining theview. The answer, for Military Geography,would be no. Military Geography is notabout explaining the spatial consequences ofmilitarism; it is about contributing to thespatial expression of militarism and militaryactivity.

III Studying the geographies of armed conflictThe second and most visible contemporaryapproach to the geographies of military acti-vities, within Anglophone human geography,is that taken by political geography towardsthe study of the geographies of armed con-flict. This body of academic literature is visiblein the sense that it constitutes a coherentliterature on the full spatialities – the spatialconsequences – of armed conflict, as well asthe more immediate causes and implications

Rachel Woodward 7

for the nation state, and its territories, bordersand boundaries, of the physical pursuit ofarmed violence for political ends. Scholarsworking on the geographies of armed conflictand its consequences choose varying self-descriptions (political geography, geopolitics,critical geopolitics), depending on theirtheoretical approach. Of course, none of theliteratures designated by these subdisciplinaryname tags are focused solely on the study ofarmed conflict, but much of this literaturedoes deal explicitly with the geographicalcauses and consequences of the pursuit ofmilitary violence by nation states andsubnational groups; armed conflict and theexistence of the nation state are intimatelyconnected. My intention here is not to add toexisting reviews of the ever-expanding bodyof scholarship in this area (for comprehensiveoverviews, see O’Loughlin and Anselin,1992; O’Loughlin and van der Wusten, 1993;Ó Tuathail, 1996; Ó Tuathail and Dalby,1998; Mamadouh, 1998; 2005; Dodds andAtkinson, 2000; Flint, 2002; 2003a; 2003b;2003c). The intention, rather, is to selectcertain themes that have emerged fromwithin the political geography, geopolitics andcritical geopolitics literatures, and to askhow contemporary scholarship on thesethemes contributes to our understanding ofthe geographical constitution of militarismand military activities.

The first theme is the myriad spatialities ofarmed conflict, in all the forms that it takes.Armed conflict, as we all know, is inherentlyspatial in its expression and constitution, andthere is a significant body of work promotingthe idea that we should think geographicallyand critically about contemporary militaryviolence. Whether one promotes the ideathat, post 9/11, we live in newly violent times,or whether one sees current military violencearound the globe as business as usual in a vio-lent world, it is notable that recent militaryinterventions and conflicts – and the novelways of pursuing military violence that theyentail – have prompted a thoughtful, criticaland engaged response from those concerned

specifically with the spatialities of theseconflicts. The spatiality and territoriality oforganized violence, in old and new forms,state-sponsored and dissident, imperial andterrorist, continues to prompt analysis interms of both activities, and the discoursesand power relations in which they sit(Fahrer, 2001; Bankoff, 2003; Flint, 2003c;Thornton, 2003; Brunn, 2004; Gregory,2004a; 2004b; Harvey, 2003; Ettlinger andBosco, 2004; Mustafa, 2005).

In addition, specific conflicts have alsobeen analysed with a view to explainingtheir spatialities; see, for example, interven-tions and fora on the events and conse-quences of 11 September 2001 (in Arab WorldGeographer, see Flint; Smith; Agnew;Abu-Nimer; McColl; Nijman; Marston andRouhani; all 2001); the Zapatista uprising(in Antipode, see Ceceña, 2004; Brandand Hirsch, 2004); the US invasion of Iraq(in Antipode, see Kiernan; Ó Tuathail;Agnew; and Roberts et al.; all 2003; see alsoFinkelstein, 2003; Graham, 2004b; Jhaveri,2004; in Arab World Geographer, seeFalah; Dalby; Dijkink; Lustick; Hixson;Farhan; Shuraydi; Khashan; Reuber; Sidaway;Webster; Murphy; and Agnew; all 2003);and the Al-Aqsa intifada, Palestine andthe occupied territories (in Arab WorldGeographer, see Falah; Nolte; Khashan;Mustafa; McColl; Newman; Halper; Schechla;Khamaisi; and Taylor; all 2000; in Antipode,see Jamoul, 2004; Falah, 2004; Gregory,2004c; Yiftachel, 2004).

The second theme concerns changingmodes of warfare and the consequences ofthis for the spatiality of armed conflict. A keyissue here is the so-called ‘Revolution inMilitary Affairs’, interpreted variously aseither a step-change in technological capabi-lities or as a pronounced shift in the origins,symmetry and rationales of armed conflict(see Gray, 1997; 2005; Kaldor, 1999; Ek,2000). There is much debate as to the precisemeaning of this identifiable twentieth centurychange in the mode of contemporary war-fare. Gray (2005) lists 51 different labels that


he identifies as being produced and used toexplain the shifting nature of warfare.However defined, it is clear that technologicaldevelopments coupled with new forms ofarmed conflict at the sub- and supranationallevels have produced in the late twentiethand early twenty-first centuries new ways ofwaging war.

A good example of the shift in the natureof war and the consequences for its spatialityis the urbanization of warfare, and there is anemergent body of both applied research andscholarly critique seeking to understand thecauses and consequences of this. Althoughthe connections between military violenceand urban form have long been recognizedand examined (see Ashworth, 1991), thedynamics of changing patterns of humansettlement and activity at a global scale meanthat military violence has come to the cityin new guises. This is an issue of concernamong military strategists and tacticians(see Glenn, 2000; Hills, 2004; Graham,2005). The urbanization of warfare has alsoprompted considerable critical appraisal of itsconsequences. Contributors to Graham’s(2004c) edited collection argue persuasivelythat changes in the ways that the defence ofthe city can be imagined have followedprofound changes in the city’s discursive andmaterial nature. Cities are no longer thebounded fortified spaces of old, but ratherspaces of multiple networks and internalboundaries which simultaneously demandand defy fortification and defence. This hasconsequences for, variously, the forms ofarmed engagement that take place (Hills,2004), the types of weapons that aredeveloped and used (Bishop and Philips,2002) and the physical organization of urbanspace (Coaffee, 2003; Farish, 2003).

The third theme identifiable in much of thegeographical literature on armed conflict isthe changing nature and discourse of securityitself (see Campbell, 1998). In this area, somecogent arguments have been made for aconceptualization of security to includeenvironmental security, concerned with the

implications for international security ofenvironmental damage and resource scarcity,and with the military agendas developed inresponse to such threats (see Homer-Dixon,1991; 1999; Parkin, 1997; Le Billon, 2001;2005; Dalby, 2002).

A fourth theme among studies of armedconflict is the consequences of warfare forhuman populations. Although much of thiswork would not necessarily be identified byits authors as ‘political geography’, it meritsmention here because it constitutes animportant strand of work in Geography’sengagement with armed violence. Examplesinclude work on the consequences of war fordeveloping nations’ economic and socialdevelopment (Stewart and Fitzgerald, 2001).Or Smallman-Raynor and Cliff ’s (2004) com-prehensive survey of the inter-relationshipbetween disease epidemics and militaryconflicts, from 1850 to the present. Or theobservations of Findlay and Hoy (2000) ofthe effects of warfare on population in, Iraqwhere the 1991 Gulf War was followed bysoaring infant and child mortality rates (alsoArnove, 2003; Kiefer, 1992). Or work on theconsequences of the Bosnian war for itspeople (Ó Tuathail and Dahlman, 2004;Dahlman, 2005) or total war’s wider rami-fications for civilians (Hewitt, 1987; 1997;2001). Included here also is work on moregeneral consequences of war over time forlandscapes and people, such as Clout’sresearch on France’s destruction andrecovery following two major wars (Clout,1997; 1999).

It should be clear from this brief reviewthat Anglophone human geography is engag-ing systematically with armed conflict and itsconsequences. While, as Mamadouh (2005)observes, Geography has shifted in the courseof the twenty-first century from ‘wargeography’ to a geography of peace, from aGeography in support of military endeavourto a Geography critical of warfare and keen tofind ways to contribute to peace, the focus onarmed conflicts and issues of territoriality hasbeen maintained. A quick review of three

Rachel Woodward 9

edited collections organized around thetheme of ‘the geography of war and peace’,published over the last two decades, bearsthis out. While the political tone and theoret-ical bases for these collections varies (reflect-ing the circumstances and times of theirproduction), they share an approach whichsees Geography’s engagement with militarismand military activities as primarily and perhapsexclusively concerned with armed conflictand its effects. Pepper and Jenkins’ (1985)contributors seek to make geographical senseof the very real concerns of the early 1980sabout the consequences of the second coldwar, the escalation of military expenditureand the possibility of nuclear annihilation.Kliot and Waterman’s (1991) contributorsconsider the repercussions of the collapse ofthe Soviet Union, the passing of the cold war,the emergence of a ‘new world order’ andspeculate on the spatiality of conflicts thatthese shifts might shape. Flint’s (2005) con-tributors update the literatures showing thepluralism of contemporary geographicalscholarship in approaching armed conflict,and the variety that conflicts can now take,from ethnic conflicts and peacekeeping toresource wars and the current US administra-tion’s ‘war on terror’. What all three collec-tions do is equate the study of militarism’sgeographies with the study of armed conflict.Of course, armed conflict is significant forspace and social relations to a degree that isdifficult to overstate. However, by squeezingmilitarism’s geographies within the binary of‘war/peace’, the wider geographical constitu-tion and expression of militarism and militaryactivities becomes lost.

Military geographies are more than justthe study of armed conflict, however signifi-cant armed conflict might be for shaping ourworld and commanding scholarly attention.Armed conflict constitutes the endpoint of arange of processes, practices, ideas and argu-ments which make it possible. Armed conflictis only possible if a whole host of things fallinto place. These activities, processes andpractices are multiple and various. They

range from the manufacture and purchaseof weapons to the recruitment and trainingof soldiers. They include the availability ofpotential recruits and the provision of facilitiesfor housing, training, clothing, equipping andmobilizing armed personnel. They includeactivities like knowledge of the spaces ofmilitary engagement and the practices whichsupport information and communicationstechnologies used in the conduct of armedconflict. They include all the things that I cansee from my upstairs window. These back-room, baseline, support and contributoryfunctions are indispensable to the pursuitof armed conflict. Armed conflict cannotproceed without them, whether it is pursuedby vast national military forces or small, localparamilitary groups. In turn, geographicalscholarship cannot ignore them, and it isto these other military geographies that Inow turn.

IV Beyond armed conflict: other military geographiesIn this section, I want to explore some ofthe issues suggested by a focus on the fullgeographical constitution and expression ofmilitarism and military activities. I draw onliteratures that deal with nonconflict situa-tions, in order to make the point that a criticalmilitary geography needs to look at the tota-lity of military activities and militarism’s con-sequences if we are to understand, fully, theways in which they are geographically consti-tuted and expressed. I focus here on thepolitics of military land use and the issuesthat flow from that, such as the politicaleconomies and social geographies of mili-tarism and military activities, and the culturalgeographies of military representation.8

The areas I discuss here are indicative anddo not mark the limits of a critical militarygeography.9

In the beginning, there is land. All militaryforces use land, for bases and barracks, fortraining, for R&D, for communicationsinfrastructure, depots. The basic fact of thephysical presence of the military in a place is


simultaneously a prosaic and profound issue.It is prosaic in that it is just there, as indicatedby the scale of its presence. I return to this ina moment, but first let us look at the scale of‘just being there’. Westing (1988) estimatedthat, in 13 advanced economies studied,around 1 % of available land was used bymilitary forces. More detailed accounts ofthe situation in different national contextsare available for Britain (Childs, 1998;Woodward, 2004), France (Doxford and Hill,1998; Doxford and Judd, 2002) and the USA(Cawley and Lawrence, 1995), and thesebear this out. Many nation states, includingthe UK and France, also make use of landsleased or otherwise occupied on foreign sov-ereign territory. Most notable is the UnitedStates with its comprehensive encirclingband of bases around the world in placesincluding Kuwait, Guam, Japan, the Philippines,Diego Garcia, Spain, Germany, the Azores,Korea, Honduras, Saudi Arabia, Turkey,Iraq, Kosovo, Iceland, Greenland, Italy, Cuba,Puerto Rico, Ecuador, Aruba, Curaçao,Australia and the UK (see Evinger, 1998;Euler and Welzer-Lang, 2000; Lindsay-Poland, 2001; Grossman, 2002; Johnson,2004). Mapping the US military presenceoverseas is an ongoing task, as the structuresand intents of the US military shift inresponse to changing US foreign policy objec-tives. The US presence in Europe during the1980s (Campbell, 1984; Duke, 1989; Gersonand Birchard, 1991) has changed with thedrawdown of troops following the end ofthe cold war (Garcia and Nemenzo, 1988;Sharp, 1990), and the global reach of USmilitary power continues to extend (Sandars,2000; Grossman, 2002). There is a basicgeography to the distribution of the military,domestic and overseas.

Then there are the consequences of themilitary presence. These, too, have a geogra-phy, identifiable in the geographical factorswhich constitute the military presence and itswider effects, and expressed through theconsequences for places of the militarypresence. Although literature on military

economic geographies is sparse we know, forexample, that military bases in home territorypotentially make a substantial contribution tolocal economies in terms of providing labouropportunities for a civilian population anda market for goods and services off-base.However, we also know that the economicbenefits of a military establishment on hometurf are very difficult to quantify due to a lackof publicly available data, and may well beoverstated (EAG/Ecotech, 1996; Solomon,1996; Parai et al., 1996; Warf, 1997; Hookerand Knetter, 1999; Woodward, 2004).Moreover, we know that the economicimpacts of military bases occupying or inhab-iting territory in other nation states can bevery mixed. While employment opportunitiesfor a local civilian population may be great(see, for example, Rocamora, 1998, on thePhilippines), levels of subcontracting varyenormously depending on levels of integrationand separation (Warf, 1997). With regard tothe social geographies of a military presence,again, while this is an under-researchedarea, they can be very mixed, dependingprimarily on whether the military in place is adomestic one or a foreign occupying force,and depending on what type of militaryinstallation it is. Some people experienceproximity to a military base as a source of notonly economic but also social security(Tivers, 1999). For others, it can be a threat,a drain on local resources, and a source ofproblematic behaviour such as the abuse ofwomen, prostitution, gambling and the drugstrade (Sturdevant and Stoltzfus, 1993;Okazawa-Rey, 1997; Rocamora, 1998; Eulerand Welzer-Lang, 2000; Shorrock, 2000;Isako-Angst, 2001). What is clear, despite thelack of research in this area, is the scope formilitary power to shape economic and socialrelations in space, and the diversity of out-comes of these processes because of thevariety in types of military occupancy andtypes of localities where this occupancy isplayed out.

While the economic and social geogra-phies of military establishments have been

Rachel Woodward 11

under-researched, the converse is true forthe defence industry. Geography has a richtradition of investigating both the myriadeconomic geographies of the defence sectoritself, and the wider impacts for regionaleconomies, and national and internationalpatterns of production, distribution andexchange from the identification of themilitary-industrial complex, through thecold war, to the contemporary globalizedarmaments sector. A small selection of exam-ples of work in this area would include:Melman (1970; 1988); Markusen et al. (1991);Smith (1993); Economic Geography specialissue (1993); Law et al. (1993); Inbar andZilberfarb (1998); Gray and Markusen (1999);Law (1999); Lumpe (2000); Guay (2001);and Bitzinger (2003). Analysis has alsofocused on the confluence of defenceindustrial and national security agendas(Lovering, 1990; 2000; Kaldor and Schméder,1997; Calhoun, 2002; der Derian, 2001) andthe privatization of military power (Singer,2004). The conversion of the defence sectorhas also been subjected to critical scrutinybecause of the local, regional, national andsometimes international impacts of thisprocess for economic relations over space andfor wider defence-dependent economies (seeJauhiainen, 1997; Warf, 1997; Sorenson,1998; Brzoska, 1999; Brömmelhörster, 2000;BICC, 2005; Markusen and Brzoska, 2000;Markusen and Serfati, 2000; Hooks, 2003).Within conversion debates, as Markusen andBrzoska (2000) acknowledge, there has todate been little work on the implications ofmilitary base conversion (see Woodward,2004). Militarism has an economic geogra-phy, although analysis of those economicgeographies has been uneven within thediscipline.

A further set of consequences which flowfrom the military use of land, the defencesector more generally, and the economic andsocial consequences of this are the responsesto and conflicts over militarism and themilitary presence. These are many andvaried, and range from policy and political

debates about military land usage versusmilitary needs, particularly where land is ascarce resource (Rubenson et al., 1999;Woodward, 1999; 2004), where there areanticipated deleterious consequences forenvironments and people (Loomis, 1993;Kuletz, 1998; Niedenthal, 2001; Nokkentved,2004), to sites of protest where militarismitself is challenged such as GreenhamCommon (Roseneil, 1995) and Menwith Hill(Wood, 2001).

Finally, we should consider here the cul-tural geographies of military representation.Representation, a social practice and strategythrough which meanings are constituted andcommunicated, is unavoidable when dealingwith militarism and military activities. ArmedForces, and defence institutions, take greatcare in producing and promoting specificportrayals of themselves and their activities inorder to legitimize and justify their activities inplaces, spaces, environments and landscapes.There is a growing body of work whichattends to these representational practices inorder to tease out the narratives which areproduced to explain military power andpresence. See, for example, Ferguson andTurnbull (1998) on Hawaii, Kuletz (1998) onthe US western deserts, Atkinson andCosgrove (1998) on Rome, Tivers (1999) onAldershot in southern England, and Woodward(1999; 2001) on Otterburn in northernEngland. See also Steinberg and Taylor (2003)on representations of civil war and insurgencyin Guatemala. Representational strategies arealso unavoidable, because they are a mecha-nism with which military personnel, militaryinstitutions and civilians make sense of warand the losses it brings (see Hoffenberg,2001; Stangl, 2003; Marshall, 2004). See, forexample, Azaryahu (2003) on the ways inwhich memory is reconfigured at theformer concentration camp at Buchenwald,or Charlesworth and Addis (2002) andCharlesworth (2004) on changing interpre-tations of concentration camps in Poland.The memorials to the 1914–1918 world warcontinue to fascinate and inspire despite


the distance of that conflict to us now(Heffernan, 1995; Morris, 1997; King, 1998;Johnson, 2003; Gough, 2004; Foster, 2004;Inglis, 2005).

My argument is that these activities associ-ated with ‘just being there’ have their owngeographies. These activities are geographi-cally constituted, in that they require anddraw upon the resources (material or discur-sive) of spaces and places, environmentsand landscapes, in order to come into being.They are geographically expressed, in thatthey imprint themselves across those samespaces, places, environments and landscapes.Furthermore, these military geographiesalso have a far wider imprint than armedconflict, marking and shaping places andspaces far distant from the points of militaryengagement – including those that I seefrom my window. They impinge upon othergeographies, of production, reproduction,circulation, exchange and representation, ofmaterial entities and discursive construc-tions. Military geographies, therefore, needto be understood not only as the study of thecauses and consequences of armed conflict,but also as the study of those military activi-ties which make armed conflict possible. Theliterature reviewed in this section indicates,however, that research interest in thesewider military geographies has been uneven.

V Conclusions: the imperative of military geographiesPaul Virilio was emphatic – all geography ismilitary geography; his point being one aboutthe pervasiveness of militarism and militaryactivities in shaping all our geographies (seeLuke and Ó Tuathail, 2000). Yves Lacoste(1976) was equally emphatic, that geographyis first of all about war (see Mamadouh,2005). These could, perhaps, be regarded ashyperbolic statements, but they are certainlypertinent about the centrality of war, militaryviolence, and all the things that make thispossible, for shaping social relations acrossspace. There is, as this paper has shown, astrong tradition of geographical scholarship

which focuses on the play of military power,as expressed by military violence, over space.However, as I have suggested, the completeextent of militarism’s geographical constitu-tion and expression demand closer scrutinyand explanation than perhaps they havereceived to date. To put this another way, if allgeographies are military in some way, theactual pursuit of armed conflict is only part ofthe story. Other parts of the narrative aresignificant too.

If other parts of the narrative aresignificant – those aspects discussed insection IV – then why has Anglophonehuman geography been less attentive tothem? Why is a self-conscious, critical,reflexive military geography either absent orless visible within this body of scholarship?This is something that has long puzzled me. Insection II, I set out one explanation as to whythis should be so. There are other explana-tions as well; geography is a small discipline, innational and international terms and/or,surely it cannot be expected to do every-thing? Yet, as I argue below, there are moralreasons for pursuing with greater vigourand purpose the question of military controlover spaces and places, environments andlandscapes.

Another explanation lies with the natureof military geographies. They are hard toresearch. Information is often not availablebecause it just has not been collected, or isnot available in forms that have any real utilityfor social scientific research. Data is oftenwithheld, judged secret in the interests ofnational security. To illustrate: in the UK thereare no publicly available aggregated figures ondisposals (sales) of defence estate propertyand lands in the UK below country level(England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland).Research on the UK defence estate, itssize, management, use and disposal is thushampered from the very beginning. Thisabsence of data is repeated again and again ifone looks at issues such as military economicgeographies, the social geographies of amilitary presence, military effects on the

Rachel Woodward 13

environment, and so on. It limits research,and as I argue elsewhere (Woodward, 2004),it constitutes, wittingly or not, a strategy formilitary control over space.

A final explanation relates to a set ofpowerful national discourses, or nationalmyths, circulating in economically advancednations in the postwar period (particularlythe UK and USA), that have promoted theidea that ‘we’ are at peace, that violentarmed conflict is something that othernations do. This, of course, is utter nonsenseif one looks at the record of military engage-ments conducted by both the UK and USAsince 1945. However, it is a powerful ideawhich has maintained an illusion that militarycapabilities and military activities, as well asmilitarism itself, are but a minor element ofthe nation’s concerns. Perhaps this accountsfor the relative invisibility of militarism’sgeographies within the discipline. This mythhas well and truly splintered now, of course,with the use of military force in places suchas Afghanistan and Iraq (among others), andtime will tell whether the resurgence ofvisibility of military activities prompts aresurgence of interest in the full geographiesthat those activities produce. There arereasons to hope that it does, althoughthere are also reasons for pessimism, giventhe power of militarism to naturalize andlegitimate military action and to obscure itseffects (including its geographies) fromcritical gaze. This naturalizing facilitatesand legitimates military control over space,place, environments and landscapes.

Yet we should not give up too easily; justbecause things are difficult to research doesnot mean that they should not or cannot bedone. I suggest two avenues for conceptualand empirical study, to take a critical militarygeography further. The first of these is a fullerconceptualization of militarism and militarypower. As Allen (1999; 2004) observes,drawing on Mann (1988) in his examination ofthe ‘lost geographies of power’, power inmilitary networks is highly concentrated,coercive and mobilized, relative to place, yet

limited when stretched. Military power,military control, lies at the root of militarygeographies. Yet there are very few (any?)existing accounts which explain exactly howmilitary power works to produce the geogra-phies that it does. Its potential and limits needdescribing and explaining if we are to under-stand militarism’s controls over space.Specifically, its methods of operation throughphysical controls over space, controls overdata and information, controls over systemsof governance and controls over representa-tional strategies seem to be crucial (seeWoodward, 2004). A critical military geogra-phy should not just describe the outcomes ofmilitary power and control, but needs also toexplain the origins of that control and themechanisms by which it operates.

The second avenue for research is thatwhich takes the small, the unremarkable, thecommonplace things that military activitiesand militarism make and do, and traces thenetworks or connections between them. It isoften the seemingly prosaic things, the thingsthat lurk at the edge of the big picture, whichcan tell us much about how systems (be theymaterial or discursive or both) operate.Things that seem mundane are often pro-tected by their ordinariness from critical gaze.The most interesting stories lie in the connec-tions between many seemingly small thingsthat build a bigger picture, revealing net-works. Think, for example, of the supplychains linking the design and manufacture of aweapon like the AK47 (Kalashnikov), and thedeployment of these easy-to-use weapons inviolent conflicts, large and small. Or the con-nections between the political economy ofheavy artillery production and these systems’environmental impacts in training and war. Icould go on, but the point is a simple one; thatthe escalation of armed conflict should notdistract us from paying attention to the littlethings that make armed conflict possible. Inthe words of Arundhati Roy, ‘The thresholdof horror has been ratcheted up so high thatnothing short of genocide or the prospect ofnuclear war merits mention’ (Roy, 2003: 4).


Even ostensibly mundane military geographiesdeserve exploration.

My final point is about the imperatives fordoing military geographies. We live in aviolent, militarized world, even if many of usare insulated from many of the more appallingand horrific effects of that violence. Ourresearch and teaching should reflect that welive surrounded by military violence; indeed, itis imperative that it does. Studying militarygeographies means making a moral judge-ment to think critically not just aboutmilitarism, the moral basis of militarizationand military activities, and the morality of theuse of organized violence for political andeconomic ends, but also about the moral con-sequences of states of militarism and militarypreparedness. Studying military geographiesmeans putting not just armed conflict withinour sights, but also all the things that makearmed conflict possible in the first place.Military geographies, in the sense that I haveoutlined in this paper, make war real; theybring the battles back to the home front. Thiscan only be a good thing. As Ignatieff puts it,‘If war becomes unreal to the citizens ofmodern democracies, will they care enoughto restrain and control the violence exercisedin their name?’ (Ignatieff, 2000: 4; see alsoGray, 1997, on this issue).

The moral imperative is particularly perti-nent for academics. As Cohen writes,‘Intellectuals who keep silent about what theyknow, who ignore the crimes that matter bymoral standards, are even more morally cul-pable when their society is free and open.They can speak freely, but choose not to’(Cohen, 2001: 286). The moral imperativeextends to tertiary education. There is a longhistory of engagement between geographycurricula and studies of international relations(see Marsden, 2000), and geography is poten-tially well placed to teach about politicalviolence (Gallaher, 2004). While much of thesubject matter of military geographies maynot necessarily be pleasant to teach or thinkabout, it is certainly necessary. Althoughwriting about photographic representations

of violence, Susan Sontag’s words arepertinent here:

it seems a good in itself to acknowledge, tohave enlarged, one’s sense of how muchsuffering caused by human wickedness there isin the world we share with others. Someonewho is perennially surprised that depravityexists, who continues to feel disillusioned (oreven incredulous) when confronted withevidence of what humans are capable ofinflicting in the way of gruesome, hands-oncruelties upon other humans, has not reachedmoral or psychological adulthood. No one aftera certain age has the right to this kind ofinnocence, of superficiality, to this degree ofignorance, or amnesia. (Sontag, 2003: 102)

AcknowledgementsThis paper was written while I was a VisitingFellow at the Defence Studies Forum,Australian Defence Force Academy inCanberra, and I would like to record mythanks to my hosts for their hospitality and forgranting me access to such wonderful libraryfacilities. The opinions expressed in this paperare my own.

Notes1. The definitions of militarism with which this

paper works, and the geographical traditionsand approaches with which this paper deals,are drawn primarily from Anglophone scholar-ship and speak directly to it. I make this pointin recognition of the arguments of criticalgeography, with which I concur, about theneed for geographers to be explicit about thesituated nature of knowledge. My focus onAnglophone scholarship reflects the fact thatthis is the scholarly tradition which I know,and within which I work. I am confident aboutthe claims I make, concerning the scope andtrajectory and limits of this scholarship,because this is a context and praxis that is myown. There are different stories to tell aboutother approaches to military issues andmilitary geographies, which may or may notcorrelate with the Anglo experience; think,for example, of French, Latin American, Araband Israeli scholarship in this field – see sectionII. That I mention, but do not explore, these indepth is not to imply that they are unimpor-tant, or can somehow be incorporated within

Rachel Woodward 15

a set of arguments originating in Anglophonehuman geography. Indeed, the insights fromscholarly traditions other than my own havebeen very useful. The point is that whilethere are certainly other stories to tell aboutmilitarism’s geographies, coming from othergeographical traditions, the fact remains that Iam not the most appropriate person toexplore them in detail.

2. A notable exception is Cynthia Enloe’s workon militarization and gender (Enloe, 1983;2000).

3. Prompted by the Dictionary’s silences, Iembarked one day on a survey of the indexesof a random collection of ‘state-of-the-discipline’ collections, to see whether my keywords (armed, defence, military, war) figuredeither as index entries or as substantivesections or chapters. My survey includedJohnston and Claval (1984), Gregory andWalford (1989), Gregory et al. (1994), Masseyet al. (1999), Rogers and Viles (2003),Shepherd and Barnes (2003) and Clokeand Johnston (2005). My key words wereabsent.

4. I use upper case to distinguish MilitaryGeography – the application of geographicaltechniques to military problems – from theless disciplined military geographies that I goon to explore in this paper.

5. At the time of writing, the President ofthe Specialty Group is a civilian academic,an exception in a history of long militaryinvolvement.

6. For a discussion of the ‘military-intellectual’complex of the cold war, specifically of socialand behavioural scientists in the USA, seeRobin (2001).

7. For an interesting and critical discussion of aparallel situation concerning the intimaciesbetween Australian defence and securityprofessionals, and defence and securitystudies, see Sullivan (1998).

8. This approach also moves on from the ‘geo-graphies of defence’ suggested by Batemanand Riley’s (1987) book of the same name.

9. Other topics suggested by a focus onmilitarism’s geographical constitution andexpression would include, for example, therelationships between military activities andthe natural environment; cartography andmilitary power; and surveillance issues.

ReferencesAbu-Nimer, M. 2001: Another voice against the war.

Arab World Geographer 4(2), online edition. Retrieved19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Agnew, J. 2001: Not the wretched of the earth: OsamaBin Laden and the clash of the civilizations. Arab WorldGeographer 4(2), online edition. Retrieved 19 August2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

— 2003: American hegemony into American empire?Lessons from the invasion of Iraq. Antipode 35, 871–85.

— 2003: Learning from the war on Iraq. Arab WorldGeographer 6(1), online edition. Retrieved 19 August2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Allen, J. 1999: Power In Massey, D., Allen, J. and Sarre, P.,editors, Human geography today, Cambridge: PolityPress, 194–218.

— 2004: Lost geographies of power. Oxford: Blackwell.Arnove, A., edtior 2003: Iraq under siege: the deadly

impact of sanctions and war. London: Pluto Press.Ashworth, G.J. 1991: War and the city. London:

Routledge.Atkinson, D. and Cosgrove, D. 1998: Urban rhetoric

and embodied identities: city, nation and empire atthe Vittorio Emanuele II monument in Rome,1870–1945. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 88, 28–49.

Azaryahu, M. 2003: Replacing memory: the reorienta-tion of Buchenwald. Cultural Geographies 10, 1–20.

Bankoff, G. 2003: Regions of risk: western discourseson terrorism and the significance of Islam. Studies inConflict and Terrorism 26, 413–28.

Bateman, M. and Riley, R., edtiors 1987: Thegeography of defence. London: Croom Helm.

Beck, R.A. 2003: Remote sensing and GIS as countert-errorism tools in the Afghanistan War: a case study ofthe Zhawar Kili Region. The Professional Geographer55, 170–79.

Bell, M., Butlin, R. and Heffernan, M., editors 1995:Geography and imperialism, 1820–1940. Manchester:Manchester University Press.

BICC (Bonn International Centre for Conversion)2005: Conversion survey 2005: global disarmament,demilitarization and demobilization. Baden-Baden:Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

Bishop, R. and Phillips, J. 2002: Unmanning the home-land. International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch 26, 620–25.

Bitzinger, R., editor 2003: Towards a brave new armsindustry? The decline of the second-tier arms-producingcountries and the emerging international division of labourin the defence industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brand, U. and Hirsch, J. 2004: In search of emancipa-tory politics: the resonances of Zapatism in westernEurope. Antipode 36, 371–382.


Brömmelhörster, J., editor 2000: Demystifying the peacedividend. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

Brunn, S., editor 2004: 11 September and its aftermath:the geopolitics of terror. London: Frank Cass.

Brzoska, M. 1999: Military conversion: the balancesheet. Journal of Peace Research 36, 131–40.

Calhoun, C., editor 2002: Militarism. In Dictionary ofthe social sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, D. 1984: The unsinkable aircraft carrier:American military power in Britain. London: MichaelJoseph.

— 1998: Writing security: US foreign policy and the politicsof identity (revised edition). Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.

Carlton, E. 2001: Militarism: rule without law.Aldershot: Ashgate.

Cawley, R.M. and Lawrence, R.M. 1995, Nationalsecurity policy and federal lands policy, or, the green-ing of the Pentagon. In Crotty, W., editor, Post-coldwar policy: the social and domestic context, Chicago:Nelson Hall, 274–92.

Ceceña, A.E. 2004: The subversion of historical knowl-edge of the struggle: Zapatistas in the twenty-firstcentury. Antipode 36, 361–70.

Charlesworth, A. 2004: A corner of a foreign field thatis forever Spielberg’s: understanding the moral land-scapes of the site of the former KL Pøaszow, Kraków.Cultural Geography 11, 291–312.

Charlesworth, A. and Addis, M. 2002:Memorialisation and the ecological landscapes ofHolocaust sites: the cases of Plaszow and Auschwitz-Birkenau. Landscape Research 27, 229–51.

Childs, J. 1998: The military use of land: a history of thedefence estate. Bern: Peter Lang AG.

Cloke, P. and Johnston, R. 2005: Spaces of geographicalthought: deconstructing human geography’s binaries.London: Sage.

Cloud, J. 2002: American cartographic transformationsduring the cold war. Cartography and GeographicInformation Science 29, 261–82.

Clout, H. 1997: War and recovery in the countryside ofnorth-eastern France: the example of the Meurthe-et-Moselle. Journal of Historical Geography 23,164–86.

— 1999: Destruction and revival: the example ofCalvados and Caen, 1940–1965. Landscape Research24, 117–39.

— 2004: Review of Boulanger, P., 2002, La Geographiemilitaire française, 1871–1939. Economica, Paris.Journal of Historical Geography 30, 188–90.

Clout, H. and Gosme, C. 2003: The naval intelligencehandbooks: a monument in geographical writing.Progress in Human Geography 27, 153–73.

Coaffee, J. 2003: Terrorism, risk and the city: the making ofa contemporary urban landscape. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Cohen, S. 2001: States of denial: knowing about atrocitiesand suffering. Cambridge: Polity.

Cole, D.H. 1930: Imperial military geography: generalcharacteristics of the empire in relation to defence.London: Sifton Praed.

Collins, J.M. 1998: Military geography for professionalsand the public. Washington, DC: Brassey’s.

Cornish, V. 1916: Naval and military geography of theBritish Empire: considered in relation to the war withGermany. London: Hugh Rees.

— 1918: The strategic geography of the great powers.London: George Philip and Son.

Corson, M.W. 2000; Strategic mobility in the 21stcentury: projecting national power in a MOOTWenvironment. In Palka, E.J. and Galgano, F.A.,editors, The scope of military geography: across thespectrum from peacetime to war, New York: McGrawHill, 233–62.

Cutter, S.L., Richardson, D.B. and Wilbanks, T.J.,editors 2003: the geographical dimensions of terrorism.New York: Routledge.

Dahlman, C. 2005: Geographies of genocide and ethniccleansing: the lessons of Bosnia-Herzegovina. InFlint, C., editor, The geography of war and peace: fromdeath camps to diplomats, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 174–97.

Dalby, S. 2001: Classics in human geography revisited,commentary 1, on Hepple’s ‘The revival of geopolitics’(1986). Progress in Human Geography 25, 423–24.

— 2002: Environmental security. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.

— 2003: Geopolitics, the Bush doctrine, and war on Iraq.Arab World Geographer 6(1), online edition. Retrieved19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Dandeker, C. 2000: Armed forces and society researchin the UK: A review of British military sociology. InKümmel, G. and Prüfert, A.D., editors, Military soci-ology: the richness of a discipline, Baden-Baden:Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 68–90.

der Derian, J. 2001: Virtuous war: mapping the military-industrial-media-entertainment network. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Dijkink, G. 2003: World police, unilateralism, and thefuture of a country. Arab World Geographer 6(1),online edition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 fromhttp://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Dodds, K. and Atkinson, D., editors 2000: Geopoliticaltraditions: a century of geopolitical thought. London:Routledge.

Doxford, D. and Hill, A. 1998: Land use for militarytraining in the UK: the current situation, likely deve-lopments and possible alternatives. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management 41, 279–97.

Doxford, D. and Judd, A. 2002: Army training: theenvironmental gains resulting from the adoption ofalternatives to traditional training methods. Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management 45, 279–65.

Rachel Woodward 17

Doyle, P. and Bennett, M. 1997: Military geography:terrain evaluation and the British Western Front,1914–1918. Geographical Journal 163, 1–24.

— 1999: Military geography: the influence of terrain inthe outcome of the Gallipoli Campaign, 1915.Geographical Journal 165, 12–36.

— , editors 2002: Fields of battle: terrain in militaryhistory. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Driver, F. 2000: Geography militant: cultures ofexploration and empire. Oxford: Blackwell.

Duke, S. 1989: United States military forces and installa-tions in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

EAG/Ecotech 1996: The impact of the peace dividend onrural England. Salisbury: Rural DevelopmentCommission.

Ek, R. 2000: A revolution in military geopolitics. PoliticalGeography 19, 841–74.

El-Bushra, E.S. and Muhammadain, M.M. 1992:Perspectives on the contribution of Arabs andMuslims to geography. GeoJournal 26, 157–66.

Enloe, C. 1983: Does khaki become you? The militarisa-tion of women’s lives. London: Pluto.

— 2000: Maneuvres: The international politics of milita-rizing women’s lives. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.

Ettlinger, N. and Bosco, F. 2004: Thinking through net-works and their spatiality: a critique of the US (public)war on terrorism and its geographic discourse.Antipode 36, 249–71.

Euler, C. and Welzer-Lang, D. 2000: Developing bestprofessional practice for reducing sexual abuse, domesticviolence and trafficking in militarised areas of peacetimeEurope. Leeds: Research Centre for Violence, Abuseand Gender Relations, Leeds Metropolitan University,UK.

Evinger, W.R. 1998: Directory of US military basesworldwide (third edition). New York: Oxryx Press.

Fahrer, C. 2001: The geography of Egypt’sIslamist insurgency. Arab World Geographer 4,online edition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 fromhttp://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Falah, G. 1994: The frontier of criticism in Israeligeographic practice. Area 26, 1–13.

— 2000: Editorial. Arab World Geographer 3(3),online edition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

— 2003: Whose war? Arab World Geographer 6(1),online edition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Falah, G.W. 2004: Truth at war and naming the intoler-able in Palestine. Antipode 36, 596–600.

Farhan, Y. 2003: The illegitimate and shameless war onthe Iraqi homeland and the Iraqi people. Arab WorldGeographer 6(1), online edition. Retrieved 19 August2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Farish, M. 2003: Disaster and decentralisation: Americancities and the cold war. Cultural Geographies 10,125–48.

Ferguson, K.E. and Turnbull, P. 1998: Oh, say, can yousee? The semiotics of the military in Hawaii.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Findlay, A.M. and Hoy, C. 2000: Global populationissues: towards a geographical research agenda.Applied Geography 20, 207–19.

Finkelstein, N. 2003: Prospects for ending the occu-pation. Antipode 35, 839–45.

Flint, C. 2001: Initial thoughts towards political geo-graphies in the wake of September 11, 2001: anintroduction. Arab World Geographer 4(2), onlineedition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

— 2002: Political geography: globalization, metapoliticalgeographies and everyday life. Progress in HumanGeography 26, 391–400.

— 2003a: Political geography II: terrorism, modernity,governance and governmentality. Progress in HumanGeography 27, 97–106.

— 2003b: Political geography: context and agency in amultiscalar framework. Progress in Human Geography27, 627–36.

— 2003c: Terrorism and counter-terrorism: geographicresearch questions and agendas. The ProfessionalGeographer 55, 161–69.

—, editor 2005: The geography of war and peace: fromdeath camps to diplomats. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Foster, J. 2004: Creating a temenos positing ‘SouthAfricanism’: national memory, landscape practice andthe circulation of identity at Delville Wood. CulturalGeography 11, 259–90.

Freeman, T.W. 1980: The Royal Geographical Societyand the development of geography. In Brown, E.H.,editor, Geography yesterday and tomorrow, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1–99.

Galgano, F.A. 2000: Streams and the Civil War land-scape: The battle for Island No.10, Mississippi River,1862. In Palka, E.J. and Galgano, F.A., editors, Thescope of military geography: across the spectrum frompeacetime to war, New York: McGraw-Hill, 31–52.

Gallaher, C. 2004: Teaching about political violence: aprimer on representation. Journal of Geography inHigher Education 28, 301–17.

Garcia, E. and Nemenzo, F. 1988: The sovereign quest:freedom from foreign military bases. Quezon:Claretian Publications.

Gerson, J. and Birchard, B., editors 1991: The sunnever sets . . . Confronting the network of foreign USmilitary bases. Boston: South End Press.

Glenn, R. 2000: Capital preservation: Preparing for urbanoperations in the 21st century. Santa Monica: RAND.

Godlewska, R. and Smith, N., editors 1994: Geographyand empire. Oxford: Blackwell.


Gough, P. 2004: Sites in the imagination: the BeaumontHamel Newfoundland Memorial on the Somme.Cultural Geographies 11, 235–58.

Grabau, W.E. 2000: 98 days: a geographer’s view of theVicksburg campaign. Knoxville, TN: University ofTennessee Press.

Graham, S. 2004a: Introduction: cities, war and statesof emergency. In Graham, S., editor, Cities, war andterrorism: towards an urban geopolitics, Oxford:Blackwell, 2–25.

— 2004b: Vertical geopolitics: Baghdad and after.Antipode 36, 12–23.

— , editor 2004c: Cities, war and terrorism: towards anurban geopolitics. Oxford: Blackwell.

— 2005: Remember Fallujah: demonising place,constructing atrocity. Environment and Planning D:Society and Space 23, 1–10.

Gray, C.H. 1997: Postmodern war: the new politics ofconflict. New York: Guilford.

— 2005: Peace, war, and computers. New York: Routledge.Gray, C.S. and Sloan, G., editors 1999: Geopolitics:

geography and strategy. London: Frank Cass.Gray, M. and Markusen, A. 1999: Colorado Springs: a

military anchored city in transition. In Markusen, A.,Lee, Y.-S. and di Giovanna, S., editors, Second tiercities, Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress, 311–32.

Gregory, D. 2004a: The colonial present. Oxford:Blackwell.

— 2004b: The angel of Iraq. Environment and PlanningD: Society and Space 22, 317–24.

— 2004c: Palestine under siege. Antipode 36, 601–606.Gregory, D. and Walford, R., editors 1989: Horizons in

human geography. London: Macmillan.Gregory, D., Martin, R. and Smith, G., edtiors 1994:

Human geography: society, space and social science.London: Macmillan.

Grossman, Z. 2002: New US military bases.Counterpunch 2 February, online edition. Retrieved 17August 2005 from http://www.counterpunch.org/zoltanbases.html

Guay, T. 2001: At arm’s length: the European Union andEurope’s defence industry. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Halper, J. 2000: The struggle for control, the end of aparadigm. Arab World Geographer 3 (3), onlineedition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Hanafi, H. 1992: World-views of Arab geographers.GeoJournal 26, 153–56.

Harris, C.D. 1997: Geographers in the US Governmentin Washington DC, during World War II. ProfessionalGeographer 49, 245–56.

Harvey, D. 1974: What kind of geography for what kindof public policy? Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers NS 63, 18–24.

— 2003: The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Heffernan, M. 1994: A state scholarship: the politicalgeography of French international science during the19th century. Transactions of British Geographers NS19, 21–45.

— 1995: For ever England: the western front and thepolitics of remembrance in Britain. Ecumene 2,293–323.

— 1996: Geography, cartography and military intelli-gence: the Royal Geographical Society and the firstworld war. Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers NS 21, 504–33.

— 1998: The meaning of Europe: Geography and geopoli-tics. London: Arnold.

— 2000: Professor Penck’s bluff: Geography, espionageand hysteria in World War I. Scottish GeographicalJournal 116, 267–82.

Henderson, J.P. 2000: Military geography of the CivilWar: the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge province. InPalka, E.J. and Galgano, F.A., editors, The scope ofmilitary geography: across the spectrum from peacetimeto war. New York: McGraw-Hill, 53–73.

Herl, B.K. 2000: Integrated military land management:the warfighter’s terrain perspective. In Palka, E.J.and Galgano, F.A., editors, The scope of military geography: across the spectrum from peacetime to war,New York: McGraw-Hill, 411–36.

Hewitt, K. 1987: The social space of terror: towards acivil interpretation of total war. Environment andPlanning D: Society and Space 5, 445–74.

— 1997: Regions of risk: a geographical introduction todisasters. Harlow: Longman.

— 2001: Between Pinochet and Kropotkin: state terror,human rights and the geographer. The CanadianGeographer 45, 338–55.

Hills, A. 2004: Future war in cities: rethinking a liberaldilemma. London: Frank Cass.

Hixson, W.L. 2003: The war on Iraq and Americanfreedom. Arab World Geographer 6(1), onlineedition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Hoffenberg, P.H. 2001: Landscape, memory and theAustralian war experience, 1915–18. Journal ofContemporary History 36, 111–31.

Homer-Dixon, T. 1991: On the threshold: environmen-tal changes as causes of acute conflict. InternationalSecurity 16, 76–116.

— 1999: Environment, security and violence. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hooker, M. and Knetter, M. 1999: Measuring theeconomic effects of military base closures. NationalBureau of Economic Research Working Paper 6941.Cambridge, MA: NBER.

Hooks, G. 2003: Military and civilian dimensions ofAmerica’s regional policy, 1972–1994. Armed Forcesand Society 29, 227–51.

Ignatieff, M. 2000: Virtual war: Kosovo and beyond.New York: Metropolitan Books.

Rachel Woodward 19

Inbar, E. and Zilberfarb, B., editors 1998: The politicsand economics of defence industries. London: FrankCass.

Inglis, K.S. 2005: Sacred places: war memorials in theAustralian landscape. Melbourne: University ofMelbourne Press.

Isako-Angst, L. 2001: The sacrifice of a schoolgirl: the1995 rape case, discourses of power, and women’slives in Okinawa. Critical Asian Studies 33, 243–66.

Jamoul, L. 2004: Palestine – in search of dignity.Antipode 36, 581–95.

Jauhiainen, J. 1997: Militarisation, demilitarisation andre-use of military areas: the case of Estonia.Geography 82, 118–26.

Jhaveri, N. 2004: Petroimperialism: US oil interests andthe Iraq war. Antipode 36, 2–11.

Johnson, C. 2004: The sorrows of empire: militarism,secrecy and the end of the republic. New York:Metropolitan Books.

Johnson, N. 2003: Irish nationalism and the geography ofremembrance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnston, R.J., editor 1981: The dictionary of humangeography. (first edition). Oxford: Blackwell.

Johnston, R.J. and Claval, P., editors 1984: Geographysince the Second World War: an international survey.London: Croom Helm.

Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. and Watts, M.2000: The dictionary of human geography (fourthedition). Oxford: Blackwell.

Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D. and Smith, D.M.,editors 1986: The dictionary of human geography(second edition). Oxford: Blackwell.

— 1994: The dictionary of human geography. (thirdedition). Oxford: Blackwell.

Jones, R. and Phillips, R. 2005: Unsettling geographi-cal horizons: exploring premodern and non-Europeanimperialism. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 95, 141–61.

Kaldor, M. 1999: New and old war: organized violence ina global era. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kaldor, M. and Schméder, G. 1997: The Europeanrupture: the defence sector in transition. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.

Kashani-Sabet, F. 1998: Picturing the homeland: geog-raphy and national identity in late nineteenth andearly twentieth century Iran. Journal of HistoricalGeography 24, 413–30.

Khamaisi, R. 2000: ‘Intifada al-Aqsa’– the perpetuationof the situation or a turning point in Israel’s relation toits Arab-Palestinian citizens? Arab World Geographer3(3), online edition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 fromhttp://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Khashan, H. 2000: An Intifada for peace and against itsprocess. Arab World Geographer 3(3), online edition.Retrieved 19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

— 2003: Baghdad’s new Mongols. Arab WorldGeographer 6(1), online edition. Retrieved 19 August2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Keeble, R. 1997: Secret state, silent press: new militarism,the Gulf and the modern image of warfare. Luton:University of Luton Press.

Kiefer, C.W. 1992: Militarism and world health. SocialScience and Medicine 34, 719–24.

Kiernan, B. 2003: ‘Collateral damage’ from Cambodiato Iraq. Antipode 35, 856–70.

King, A. 1998: Memorials of the Great War in Britain:the symbolism and politics of remembrance. Oxford:Berg.

King, W.C., Palka, E.J. and Harmon, R.S. 2004:Identifying optimum locations for tropical testing ofUnited States Army materièl and systems. SingaporeJournal of Tropical Geography 25, 92–108.

Kliot, N. and Waterman, S., editors 1991: The politicalgeography of conflict and peace. London: Belhaven.

Kuletz, V. 1998: The tainted desert: environmental andsocial ruin in the American West. London: Routledge.

Lacoste, Y. 1973: An illustration of geographicalwarfare: bombing of the dikes on the Red River,North Vietnam. Antipode 5, 1–13.

— 1976: La Géographie, ça sert, d’abord, à faire la guerre.Paris: Maspéro.

Law, A. 1999: Melting the cold war permafrost: restruc-turing military industry in Scotland. Antipode 31,421–52.

Law, R., Wolch, J. and Takahashi, L. 1993: Defense-less territory: workers, communities and the declineof military production in Los Angeles. Environmentand Planning C 11, 291–315.

Le Billon, P. 2001: The political ecology of war: naturalresources and armed conflicts. Political Geography 20,561–84.

— , editor 2005: The geopolitics of resource wars: resourcedependence, governance and violence. London: FrankCass.

Lindberg, M. and Todd, M. 2001: Brown-, green- andblue-water fleets: the influence of geography on navalwarfare, 1861 to the present. Westport: Praeger.

Lindsay-Poland, J. 2001: US military bases in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. Foreign Policy in Focus 6,online edition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 fromhttp://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n35milbase.html

Livingstone, D. 1998: The geographical tradition:episodes in the history of a contested enterprise.Oxford: Blackwell.

Loomis, D. 1993: Combat zoning: military land use plan-ning in Nevada. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

Lovering, J. 1990: Military expenditure and the restruc-turing of capitalism: the military industry in Britain.Cambridge Journal of Economics 14, 453–67.

— 2000: Loose cannons: creating the arms industryin the 21st century. In Kaldor, M., editor, Global


insecurity: restructuring the global military sector,vol. III, London: Pinter, 147–76.

Luke, T. and Ó Tuathail, G. 2000: Thinking geopoliti-cal space: the spatiality of war, speed and vision in thework of Paul Virilio. In Crang, M. and Thrift, N.,editors, Thinking space, London: Routledge, 360–79.

Lumpe, L., editor 2000: Running guns: the global blackmarket in small arms. New York: Zed Books.

Lustick, I.S. 2003: America’s war and Osama’s script.Arab World Geographer 6(1), online edition. Retrieved19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

MacDonnell, A.C. 1911: Outlines of military geography.London: Hugh Rees.

Maguire, T.M. 1899: Outlines of military geography.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malinowski, J., editor 2003: Iraq: geographic perspec-tives. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mamadouh, V. 1998: Geopolitics in the nineties: oneflag, many meanings. GeoJournal 46, 237–53.

— 2005: Geography and war, geographers and peace. InFlint, C., editor, The geography of war and peace: fromdeath camps to diplomats, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 26–60.

Mann, M. 1988: States, war and capitalism. Oxford:Blackwell.

Markusen, A. and Brzoska, M. 2000: The regionalrole in post cold-war military industrial conversion.International Regional Science Review 23, 3–24.

Markusen, A. and Serfati, C. 2000: Remaking themilitary industrial relationship: a French-Americancomparison. Defence and Peace Economics 11, 271–99.

Markusen, A., Hall, P., Campbell, S. and Deitrick,S. 1991: The rise of the gunbelt: the military remappingof industrial America. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Marsden, W.E. 2000: Geography and two centuries ofeducation for peace and international understanding.Geography 85, 289–302.

Marshall, D. 2004: Making sense of remembrance.Social and Cultural Geography 5, 37–54.

Marston, S. and Rouhani, F. 2001: Teaching and learn-ing the lesson of complexity. Arab World Geographer4(2), online edition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 fromhttp://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Massabni, M. 1977: Urban contradiction and civil war:the destruction of the slum of Quarantina in Beirut.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research1, 132–44.

Massey, D., Allen, J. and Sarre, P. 1999: Humangeography today. Cambridge: Polity.

May, E.S. 1909: An introduction to military geography.London: Hugh Rees.

Mayhew, R. 2000: Enlightenment geography: the politicallanguages of British geography, 1650–1850.Basingstoke: Macmillan.

McColl, R.W. 2000: On a razor’s edge: opportunity lostor opportunity gained? Arab World Geographer 3(3),online edition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 fromhttp://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

— 2001: The law of unintended consequences: reflec-tions on some global and national changes followingthe events of September 11, 2001. Arab WorldGeographer 4(2), online edition. Retrieved 19 August2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Melman, S. 1970: Pentagon capitalism: the politicaleconomy of war. New York: McGraw-Hill.

— 1988: The demilitarized society: disarmament andconversion. Montreal: Harvest House.

Mitchell, D. 2005: You who are the bureaucrats ofempire, remember who we are. Antipode 37,203–207.

Morris, M. 1997: Gardens ‘for ever England’: land-scape, identity and the first world war Britishcemeteries on the western front. Ecumene 4, 410–33.

Murphy, A.B. 2003: Geopolitical perspectives on theIraq war: emerging insights and remaining challenges.Arab World Geographer 6(1), online edition. Retrieved19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Mustafa, D. 2005: The terrible geographicalness ofterrorism: reflections of a hazards geographer.Antipode 37, 72–92.

Mustafa, W. 2000: Al-Aqsa Intifada: why? Arab WorldGeographer 3(3), online edition. Retrieved 19 August2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Newman, D. 2000: The symbolism of space and placeamongst Israelis and Palestinians. Arab WorldGeographer 3(3), online edition. Retrieved 19 August2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Niedenthal, J. 2001: For the good of mankind: a historyof the people of Bikini and their islands. (secondedition). Micronitor: Bravo Publishers.

Nijman, J. 2001: New York city and the geopolitical tran-sition. Arab World Geographer 4(2), online edition.Retrieved 19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Nokkentved, N.S. 2004: Desert wings: controversy inthe Idaho desert. Washington, DC: Washington StateUniversity Press.

Nolte, R. 2000: Reflections of a long-time observer.Arab World Geographer 3(3), online edition. Retrieved19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Okazawa-Rey, M. 1997: Amerasian children of GITown: a legacy of US militarism in South Korea.Asian Journal of Women’s Studies 3, 71–102.

O’Loughlin, J. and Anselin, L. 1992: The geographyof international conflicts; theory and methods. In

Rachel Woodward 21

Ward, M.D., editor, The new geopolitics, Philadelphia:Gordon and Breach, 11–38.

O’Loughlin, J. and van der Wusten, H. 1993: Thepolitical geography of war and peace. In Taylor, P.J.,editor, Political geography of the twentieth century,London: Belhaven, 63–113.

O’Sullivan, P. 1991: Terrain and tactics. New York:Greenwood Press.

— 2001: The geography of war in the post cold war world.Lampeter: Edward Mellen.

O’Sullivan, P. and Miller, J.W. 1983: The geography ofwarfare. London: Croom Helm.

Ó Tuathail, G. 1996: Critical geopolitics: The politics ofwriting global space. London: Routledge.

— 2003: ‘Just out looking for a fight’: American affectand the invasion of Iraq. Antipode 35, 856–70.

Ó Tuathail, G. and Dahlman, C. 2004: The effort toreverse ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina: thelimits of returns. Eurasian Geography and Economics45, 439–64.

Ó Tuathail, G. and Dalby, S. 1998: Rethinking geo-politics. London: Routledge.

Palka, E.J., editor 2004a: Afghanistan: geographicperspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill.

— , editor 2004b: North Korea: geographic perspectives.New York: McGraw-Hill.

— 2004c: Military geography. In Gaile G.L. andWillmott, C.J., editors, Geography in America at thedawn of the twenty-first century, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Palka, E.J. and Galgano, F.A., editors 2000: The scopeof military geography: across the spectrum from peace-time to war. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parai, L., Solomon, B. and Wait, T. 1996: Assessingthe socio-economic impacts of military installationson their host communities. Defence and PeaceEconomics 7, 7–19.

Parkin, S. 1997: Environmental security: issues andagenda for an incoming government. Royal UnitedServices Institute Journal June, 24–28.

Peet, R. 2000: Commentary: celebrating 30 years ofradical geography. Environment and Planning A 32,951–53.

Peltier, L.C. and Pearcy, G.E. 1966: Military geo-graphy. New Jersey: Van Nostrand.

Pepper, D. and Jenkins, A., editors 1985: The geogra-phy of peace and war. Oxford: Blackwell.

Radcliffe, S. 1999: Popular and state discourses ofpower. In Massey, D., Allen, J. and Sarre, P., editors,Human geography today, Cambridge: Polity Press,219–42.

Radcliffe, S. and Westwood, S. 1996: Remaking thenation: place, identity and politics in Latin America.London: Routledge.

Reuber, P. 2003: The tale of the Just War – a post-structuralist objection. Arab World Geographer 6(1),online edition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 from

http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Roberts, S., Secor, A. and Sparke, M. 2003:Neoliberal geopolitics. Antipode 35, 886–97.

Robin, R. 2001: The making of the cold war enemy: cul-ture and politics in the military-intellectual complex.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rocamora, J. 1998: The conversion of the US SubicNaval Base in the Phillipines: political and economicconsequences. In Kaldor, M., Albrecht, U. andSchméder, G., editors, The end of military fordism:restructuring the global military sector, London: Pinter,287–311.

Roder, W. 1973: Effects of guerrilla war in Angola andMozambique. Antipode 5, 14–21.

Rogers, A. and Viles, A., editors 2003: The student’scompanion to geography, (second Edition). Oxford:Blackwell.

Roseneil, S. 1995: Disarming patriarchy: feminism andpolitical action at Greenham. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Roy, A. 2003: War talk. Cambridge, MA: South EndPress.

Rubenson, D., Weissler, R., Wong, C. and Everson,R. 1999: Does the Army have a national land strategy?Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

Salt, A.E.W. 1925: Military geography of the BritishCommonwealth. Aldershot and London: Gale andPolden.

Sandars, C.T. 2000: America’s overseas garrisons:the leasehold empire. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Schechla, J. 2000: Putting human rights back on the mapof Palestine. Arab World Geographer 3(3), onlineedition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Sharp, J. 1990: Europe after an American withdrawal:Economic and military issues. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Shaw, M. 1991: Post-military society: militarism, demili-tarisation and war at the end of the twentieth century.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Shepherd, E. and Barnes, T. 2003: A companion toeconomic geography. Oxford: Blackwell.

Shorrock, T. 2000: Okinawa and the US military inNortheast Asia. Foreign Policy in Focus 5(22), onlineedition. Retrieved 19 August 2005 from http://www.fpit.org/briefs/vol5/u7n22.okinawa.html

Shuraydi, M.A. 2003: Is devastation the price ofdemocracy? Operation Iraqi freedom. Arab WorldGeographer 6(1), online edition. Retrieved 19 August2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Sidaway, J.D. 2003: Decentring political geographies.Arab World Geographer 6(1), online edition. Retrieved19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top


Singer, P.W. 2004: Corporate warriors: The rise of theprivatized military industry. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.

Smallman-Raynor, M. and Cliff, A. 2004: Warepidemics: an historical geography of infectious diseasesin military conflict and civil strife, 1850–2000. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Smith, D. and Smith, R. 1983: The economics ofmilitarism. London: Pluto.

Smith, G. 1993: Geopolitics. In Johnston, R.J., editor,The challenge for geography: a changing world, achanging discipline, Oxford: Blackwell, 76–99.

Smith, N. 2001: Ashes and aftermath. Arab WorldGeographer 4(2), online edition. Retrieved 19 August2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

— 2002: American empire: Roosevelt’s geographer andthe prelude to globalization. Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.

Solomon, B. 1996: The socio-economic assessment ofmilitary installations using an integer programmingmodel. Defence and Peace Economics 7, 21–32.

Sontag, S. 2003: Regarding the pain of others. London:Hamish Hamilton.

Sorenson, D. 1998: Shutting down the cold war: Thepolitics of military base closure. New York: St Martin’sPress.

Stangl, P. 2003: The Soviet war memorial in Treptow,Berlin. Geographical Review 93, 213–36.

Steinberg, M.K. and Taylor, M.J. 2003: Public mem-ory and political power in Guatemala’s postconflictlandscape. Geographical Review 93, 449–68.

Stephenson, M., editor 2003: Battlegrounds: geographyand the history of warfare. Washington, DC: NationalGeographic.

Stewart, F. and Fitzgerald, V. and associates 2001: Warand underdevelopment. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Stoddart, D.R. 1992: The ‘new geography’ and the‘new Army’ in England, 1899–1914. PoliticalGeography 11, 87–99.

Sturdevant, S.P. and Stoltzfus, B. 1993: Let the goodtimes roll: prostitution and the US military in Asia.New York: New Press.

Sullivan, D. 1998: Professionalism and Australia’ssecurity intellectuals: knowledge, power, respon-sibility. Australian Journal of Political Science 33,421–40.

Taylor, P.J. 2000: Commentary: subtleties of power.Arab World Geographer 3(3), online edition. Retrieved19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Thee, M. 1980: Militarism and militarisation in contempo-rary international relations. In Adbjorn, E. and Thee,M., editors, Problems of contemporary militarism,London: Croom Helm, 15–35.

Thompson, D.M. and Grubbs, J.H. 1998: Embracingcultural geography: an Army imperative. GeoJournal44, 35–41.

Thornton, W. 2003: Cold war II: Islamic terrorism aspower politics. Antipode 35, 205–11.

Tivers, J. 1999: ‘The home of the British Army’: theiconic construction of military defence landscapes.Landscape Research 24, 303–19.

Unwin, P.T. 1992: The place of geography. Harlow:Longman.

Vagts, A. 1959: A history of militarism: civilian andmilitary. London: Hollis and Carter.

Warf, B. 1997: The geopolitics/geoeconomics of militarybase closures in the USA. Political Geography 16,541–63.

Webster, G. 2003: Comments on war in Iraq essays.Arab World Geographer 6(1), online edition. Retrieved19 August 2005 from http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/indexno.html#top

Westing, A. 1988: The military sector vis-a-vis theenvironment. Journal of Peace Research 25, 257–64.

Winters, H.A., with Galloway, G., Reynolds, W.and Rhyne, D. 1998: Battling the elements: weatherand terrain in the conduct of war. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Wood, D. 2001: The hidden geography of transnationalsurveillance: Social and technological networks aroundsignals intelligence sites. PhD thesis, University ofNewcastle, UK.

Woodward, R. 1999: Gunning for rural England: thepolitics of the promotion of military land use in theNorthumberland National Park. Journal of RuralStudies 15, 17–33.

— 2001: Khaki conservation: an examination of militaryenvironmentalist discourses in the British Army.Journal of Rural Studies 17, 201–17.

— 2004: Military geographies. Oxford: Blackwell.Yiftachel, Y. 2004: Contradictions and dialectics:

reshaping political space in Israel/Palestine: An indi-rect response to Lina Jamoul. Antipode 36, 607–13.

Rachel Woodward 23

From Military Geography to militarism's geographies: disciplinary engagements with the geographies...

Documents

Transcript of From Military Geography to militarism's geographies: disciplinary engagements with the geographies...