Making Cities More Prosperous - By Philip Petraglia

Published in 2010 by the noted University of Toronto professor, Richard Florida, “The Great Reset” is professor Florida’s well-timed thesis for how to make cities more prosperous.

What’s refreshing is his lack of nostalgia and sentimentality. The grandson of Italian immigrants from the Campania region in southern Italy, Professor Florida grew up in the blue collar part of New Jersey made famous by Bruce Springsteen. This was a world where Florida’s parents could graduate from high school and expect to get a good paying factory job. Florida pays homage to that era but acknowledges that it came to an end many decades ago. Facts don’t lie. Jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector shrunk 32% since 1950, while the percentage of blue collar jobs went from 39 to 19%. The great reset as Florida calls it has been taking place in the past few decades, with some 28 million routine service jobs added to the U.S. labour force, while another 23 million jobs were added in what he refers to as the knowledge, professional, and creative sectors. Meanwhile, only one million manufacturing jobs were added during since 1950. The key as Florida sees it, is for society and policymakers to enhance the job skills of workers in the service sector, while promoting the more rewarding and higher paying jobs in the knowledge, professional and creative sectors.

Florida points to a key dilemma facing both Canada and the United States. One is the propensity for citizens in both countries to assume costly mortgages. The effect of this is to keep society from investing money in the high technology and creative sectors, whether in regard to research and development or in the financing of set ups. High mortgages also keep most consumers from saving money and preparing for their retirement. He believes that policymakers should be encouraging people to rent rather than to assume costly mortgages. Since workers in today’s economy need to be mobile, renting makes more sense. Forcing people into mortgages they can’t break only serves the needs of financial institutions.

Another dilemma he rightly points out is the financial sector’s disproportionate role in the running of the U.S. economy. The financial sector, he argues, is more interested in satisfying the interests of middle men than of creating dynamic jobs in the knowledge sector. The financial sector’s key aim, he adds, is to gain immediate and quick profits tied to real estate speculation and credit card debt. The effect is to keep money from going where it’s really needed, like science and technology.

But when did all this begin? An argument can be made that capitalism has been taking the wrong road ever since the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Whether it be with regard to the financial banking crisis in Greece and Cyprus, or the near melt down of the world’s largest economy as almost occurred just a few years ago on Wall Street, the economies of countries in much of the western world are geared towards creating quick profits based on speculation rather than real profits and productivity. Regulatory laws, especially in the United States, were changed to meet the needs of financial institutions and their quest for quick short term profits, regardless of long term effects. Add to this the Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping interest rates at a historical low, and it becomes clear that the purpose behind public policy for the past two decades has been to favour financial institutions over the more innovative segments of the economy. Low interest rates encourage citizens in both Canada and the United States to assume mortgages they can’t not afford. The purpose behind government policies in much of the western world has been to support the interests of shareholders rather than employees.

Florida points out that the biggest debts in the U.S. are owed with regard to home ownership, health care, education, and transportation. Professor Florida might have made a comparison to Canada to show just how dire the situation in the U.S. has become. Unlike the situation in the U.S., Canadian banks are more conservative and less reticent to provide borrowers with ridiculous loans for mortgages borrowers can’t afford. Indeed, Canada’s financial regulatory laws are among the most conservative and severe in the Western World, something which U.S. policymakers may want to emulate. As for education, the cost of University education in Canada is way cheaper. Thus unlike their U.S. counterpart, Canadian graduates are not saddled with debts lasting decades. In contrast, it’s what keeps young American graduates from starting their own companies or from investing in other segments of the economy. As for health care, the single payer system in Canada means that consumers and Canadian companies are not saddled with health costs that can potentially bankrupt them. The effect of these debts in the U.S. is to render both citizens and companies less competitive. The only real winners are the financial institutions who stand to make billions. These are billions that are not being poured into other segments of the U.S. economy.

Florida presents potential solutions for making cities more competitive. He rightly points out that both Canada and the U.S. should invest money in infrastructure, especially with regard to public transportation, like high speed rail between the Windsor to Quebec City corridor. And he points out that suburbia as a model no longer works. High density will help make suburbs built on a nineteen fifties model more economically and environmentally viable. Florida argues that transportation is a source of personal debt that can be alleviated through intelligent policymaking and maintains that competitive cities must provide for great public spaces, like parks and green spaces and vibrant waterfronts. And this is because the new economy is one based on creativity and technology that attracts a certain class of people for whom quality of life issues are supremely important. Portland, Oregon, rather than Detroit or Buffalo is where future prosperity lies. Bicycle lanes, progressive social policy, great cultural institutions like museums are what employees and employers tied to the knowledge economy are seeking. But more importantly, governments must spend on education and provide future workers with the skills to meet the needs of a knowledge based economy. Whether it be with regard to colleges, universities or vocational schools, no city or economy can thrive without these institutions receiving sufficient funds for teaching proper job skills.

In the end Florida is encouraging us all, citizens and policy makers alike, to examine how we live and to question whether the working model used in the fifties is still viable. He is basically asking us to be more mobile, adaptable to change, and open to new professions that may make our lives and our civic culture more prosperous and financially secure.

Why We Build Cities - By Philip Petraglia

With well over 50% of the world’s population now living in cities, legislators and policymakers should ask themselves how to make cities more liveable. First question: for whom are cities built? Is it for the masses or for certain social elites? Do we develop public spaces for all socio economic groups to use? Is it ever fair to cut off access to the shore line as seems to be the case in so many cities? Take the city of Oakville in the Canadian province of Ontario, located on the banks of Lake Ontario, where the public has access to only a tiny portion of the shoreline. Is it ever justifiable to allow for the construction of ostentatious homes along a city’s shoreline? In the city of Victoria where I live, a magnificent bike lane was built connecting Victoria to Sydney, some 30 kilometers away. Yet very little of the coast is seen by cyclists owing to the construction of subdivisions of suburban home along most of the shoreline. A bike ride to Sydney is a study in urban sprawl rather than an appreciation of Vancouver Island’s natural wonders. And then there’s Montreal, located on an island, with a population close to two million, where most people don’t have access to the shoreline. Why is building huge homes for the few more fair than developing the shoreline for the enjoyment of the greater population? Parks, beaches, bike lanes, children’s parks, where does one stop?

Cities around the world, especially in the developing world, are growing at a rapid rate. How then do policymakers develop and protect public spaces for the enjoyment of all? There will always be rich and poor and people in between. No one should begrudge someone for having more wealth. The issue is more about creating an urban environment that serves the needs of all citizens. Fortunately we have examples from cities around the world. Let’s start with New York City. Central Park was created during that city’s golden age in the 1890’s. When we think of Central Park we think of Frederick Olmstead, the great landscape architect. But what of the policymakers who had the foresight to set aside such a huge tract of land for the enjoyment of all? And then there’s Montreal with its park built around a mountain. Most of the mountain has in in fact been developed. Mansions were built for wealthy families in what is today called Westmount. But a portion of the mountain was eventually set aside for a park, to be called Mount-Royal Park, where the city’s working classes could escape from the city’s noise and pollution. What would either New York or Montreal be today without these large urban spaces? Cities like Mumbai and Shanghai will never reach their greatness if they feel to appreciate the importance of developing such large oases of peace for the enjoyment of their citizens, regardless of income or class.

But why is developing and preserving a public space so important? Why shouldn’t we just leave this to the private sector? There are many reasons I can think of, but the most important one is because we want our urban environments to be liveable and open to all by making them free. Then income disparities become less important. Class distinctions no longer matter if we all enjoy a certain quality of life. Great urban spaces allow us to escape the stress of contemporary life and to recharge our batteries. Of course it’s not enough to just build great public spaces for there to be greater equality. Governments must provide for great public education and health care, as is presently being done in Canada. But developing great public spaces is certainly part of the equation. Building public spaces helps promote individual happiness by providing citizens with an outlet where they can enjoy themselves by either interacting with others or by spending some private time alone. And lastly, it tells them that they leave in a society where they matter.

The development of an urban space is essentially democracy in action. Democracy, after all, starts at the local level. Thankfully there are cities around the world that understand this. My wife and I spent two days in Split, Croatia, this past summer, a city most travellers seem to ignore when travelling in Croatia. Split is a bustling port city located on the Adriatic and that country’s second largest city. What we enjoyed was the city’s public beach, free and accessible for all to use, and the city’s waterfront promenade, which seems to go on forever. Parks also abound allowing citizens to escape the summer heat.

Parks are not the only examples of urban spaces. From Croatia we went to the Italian city of Trieste, a city dotted with public spaces, our favourite of which was the Piazza Unita d’Italia, with it statutes and fountains and clear views of the Adriatic. Trieste is also a port city and it seems like you’re never far from the sea. But America has its own little jewels like Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Oregon, where there always seems to be some free event going on. Regardless of income, anyone can sit on its steps and read a book or just have a coffee with a friend. This wonderful public space is smack in the middle of the city and is the centerpiece of that great city’s downtown. It gives citizens and travellers a place to go to regardless of income.

And this brings me to Bill de Blasio, the man likely to become New York City’s next mayor. While certainly to the left of the other candidates in the Democratic primary, he represents not so much a turn to the left as a check on gentrification. New York was of course dying in the seventies and eighties. Both Giuliani and Bloomberg can be credited for rescuing that city from economic and social decline, but they also represent that city’s increasing gentrification. And who benefits from gentrification? Usually it’s the well-educated, the professionals, the artists, hipsters, foodies, yuppies, and empty nesters. Those who don’t do as well include the elderly, especially long-time residents, the working class, and ethnic minorities. It’s too early to tell whether de Blasio will deliver for all New Yorkers, but what his likely election will demonstrate, should he win, is the electorate’s concern with their future in that great city. Is New York a city that all can live in? Will public spaces be developed for all to use? Is the promotion of real estate the main reason we have city government?

The future of cities is humanity’s future as was discussed in a previous blog. Politicians like de Blasio will hopefully understand this and continue to build public spaces for all to use. We always remember the great architects and artists who beautify our cities, but never the great minds who conceived such enlightened urban projects. Hopefully urban leaders like de Blasio will fight to make the city a place where all are welcomed regardless of income. This means putting the interests of citizens before those of real estate developers, large retail stores, and outside interests with no personal ties to the city.

The Future of Cities & Humanity – By Philip Petraglia

Humanity has been around for thousands of years and for the first time in human history our urban society has surpassed our rural counterpart. More people on planet earth live in cities than in towns and villages. What does all this mean for our political, economic, and social future? The planet is becoming so urbanized that upwards of 80% of humanity will likely be living in cities by the end of this century

The earth’s rapid urbanization requires us to re-examine our legal and political systems. It’s a fact that in countries like Canada and the United States rural areas tend to be overrepresented, to the benefit of conservative parties that cater to an electorate that is more ethnically homogeneous. Most immigrants flock flock to cities where most work is found, and tend to live in more congested neighbourhoods. Why should people who add so much to society be politically underrepresented? Cities in Asia and Africa are experiencing a different sort of influx. Typically, they receive migrants from the interior of the country who likely belong to a different ethnic, religious, or tribal group. These people tend to have their own customs which are neither recognized nor appreciated. Think for example of Kurds moving from Turkey’s rural areas to that country’s mega cities like Istanbul. What legal rights do they have as Turkish citizens once they arrive in search of work? In what ways are their cultural and linguistic rights recognized? They are, after all, citizens native to Turkey rather than immigrants. Is a country’s ethnic minority entitled to cultural protection once it moves from the countryside to the national capital? Examples abound in Asia and Africa. What will be interesting to observe is whether the influx of different ethnic groups into cities will create a new political dynamic for nations. Will these ethnic communities vote as a bloc, or will a new political dynamic based on class develop? Will urbanization reduce and diminish one’s ethnic identity or enhance it? Does a Kurd living in Istanbul feel more cosmopolitan and less Kurdish? The arrival of different ethnic groups will result in ethnic neighbourhoods sprouting either in existing neighbourhoods or in outlying areas. Will this lead to ethnic tensions? Will it provide demagogues with an opportunity to exploit these divisions for political gains?

One of the problems faced by cities is their inability to meet expenses. This is owing to the fact that while cities tend to be generators of wealth, tax policies in most countries tend to provide cities with few means of raising taxes. Whether it be in regard to income taxes or sales taxes, cities tend to rely on property tax alone. This situation is not only unfair and archaic but also unproductive. Cities should be seen as mini-states where a country’s best and brightest flock to try new ideas and promote a nation’s economy. Allowing cities to keep a percentage of income tax paid by local residents and businesses, in addition to a percentage of sales tax collected, would allow cities to meet basic infrastructure needs. There are other legal changes that could benefit both a society and a nation as a whole. Cities could be given the duty of administering certain services currently under provincial or state jurisdiction such as education and regional development. Regional city councils could be responsible for transportation and the local environment. State and provincial governments could either set policy and have cities administer them or simply allow cities to set policy, while retaining the right to take back these powers if unsatisfied with the results attained.

Because so many rural people are moving to the city, country sides around the world are emptying out. This presents certain opportunities. One can imagine that if thousands of villages are emptying out and essentially dying, these villages might be returned back to nature through the replanting of trees. What were once lands used for farming could be turned back into forests. What would be unfortunate is if these lands were used to promote urban sprawl as seems to have happened in North America. Laws will have to be passed in most of the developing world to assure that these vacant lands don’t become part of greater Mumbai or greater Jakarta. What policymakers should ponder is how to avoid urban sprawl, something most policymakers failed to do in North America. Many of these rural areas might become part of a national park where animals and vegetation wiped out by agriculture might make a come back.

The moving of village people to the cities could have a positive effect on the environment. Take transportation for example. If 80% of a country’s population lives in the city, then intelligent planning and policymaking can be used to develop an efficient and affordable mass transit system. The aim should be for 80% of the population to use mass transit rather than the automobile to get to and from work. Having large amounts of people in a concentrated area provides the government with a window of opportunity, as it’s much easier to develop mass transit as a principle means of transport when people are not dispersed over a large area. Another way in which urbanization can benefit the environment is by promoting responsible urban planning so that people live in walking distance of basic services while living in buildings designed to comfortably house more than one family.

Most people move to cities in search of work and a better life. Many, like young people, are also in search of a more exciting and culturally stimulating life. Fair enough. But as villages empty out, much is lost. Local cuisines, music, languages, and dialects all face extinction. A good example is Italy, where local dialects and cuisines face extinction as local villagers move to the northern cities in search of work. An attempt should be made to preserve what is being lost, to catalogue what existed for centuries. Urbanization, while promoting cosmopolitan values, paradoxically creates homogeneity as local cultures are assimilated by the national identity. Laws can be passed to promote and preserve local cultures. And academics can do their part by recording what is likely to be lost over time.

The depopulation of small villages will have an effect on local economies, schools, and infrastructure. Less money will flow from the national government to these areas simply because there are fewer voters to please. Every nation will lose a part of its identity as rural people moving to urban areas adopt new identities. It may take a generation or two, but people because transformed, whether they be internal migrants or immigrants from abroad. Much change will consequently come at the cultural level.

Urbanization is here to stay. There’s no going back to some pastoral fantasy as Thomas Jefferson hoped for. Better for politicians and policymakers to make the best of it.

Understanding the dilemma in Syria – By Philip Petraglia

As the world waits anxiously for President Obama’s next move, a look back at past conflicts will no doubt remind us of the perils foreign powers face when intervening in someone else’s civil war.

A case in point is the war in Vietnam. Fought between 1955-1975, well over a million Vietnamese and some 58,000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives. The U.S. intervened in 1963 believing that it had a national security interest at stake based on the “domino theory”. The war was fought during the height of the cold war and political theorists maintained that the fall of South Vietnam would have a domino effect, with one country after another falling into the hands of Moscow and Beijing. Saigon fell in April 1975, marking the end of the war, but communism only spread to a few neighbouring countries, namely Cambodia and Laos. In the end this turned out to be a civil war between the north and the south and nothing more. The demise of the USSR and the adoption of capitalism by China are all testimony to the fact that while democracy hasn’t yet triumphed over authoritarianism in these two countries, capitalism, or at least a variant of it,  certainly has. Meanwhile countries in eastern Europe have managed to adopt both democracy and capitalism.

The war in Vietnam was one that the U.S. did not create. It simply decided to intervene in a region of the world most Americans, including policymakers, knew little about. The civil war in Iraq, which is still going on, is in contrast one that the U.S. unintentionally but recklessly started. Ruled by Saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator, this savage ruler came from that country’s Sunni minority who make up  25% of Iraq’s population. This is in contrast to the Shiites with close to 60%, and Kurds with 10%.  Other minorities, including Christians and Turkmen, are 5%. We thus see the rich ethnic mix which Hussein exploited for his tribe’s own personal benefit. The point here is that while Hussein was certainly a ruthless dictator, he kept the different sectarian groups from massacring one another. Some may question the reasons why the U.S. invaded that country in 2003. Was it really to destroy weapons of mass destruction as Colin Powell argued before the world? Or was it to protect that nation’s rich oil reserves as some on the left argue? Whatever the real reasons may be, the fact remains that Iraq has been caught in a vicious civil war ever since the invasion. The facts don’t lie. Well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives, and over two million Iraqis have become either internal or external refugees. By external is meant Iraqis forced to flee into neighbouring Jordan and Syria, two poor countries unable to cope with such a human tragedy. Meanwhile, one million Iraqis have become internal refugees, as regions in Iraq with mixed neighbourhoods and cities became ethnically cleansed. In the end no evidence was presented of Iraq holding any weapons of mass destruction nor was it ever proven that Saddam Hussein orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.

This brings us to Syria. The U.S. did not create this civil conflict, just like it did not create the civil conflict in Vietnam. Should it therefore choose to attack Syria? Assuming that the Assad regime did use chemical weapons against civilians, what would an attack accomplish? This conflict is essentially representative of a wider conflict in the region between Sunnis and Shiites, with the Alawites allied with the Shiites. The Alawites are only 12% of the population but have been holding on to power for the past few decades thanks to support from the Sunni merchant class, and other religious and ethnic minorities like Christians, Kurds, and Druze. This is not to say that these groups are in total support of the Assad regime or Alawite domination. But many minorities fear Sunni dominance, especially if religious extremists within the Sunni community assume power. A U.S. attack on the Assad regime could have the effect of tilting the balance of power in favour of Islamic extremists who show little respect for the rights of women and religious minorities. For many in Syria, this is a conflict between secularism and a radical form of Islam  foreign to the country’s pluralistic traditions. .

Regional powers in the region are, in addition, dangerously complicating matters by allying themselves with either the rebels or the Syrian government. The rebels remain for the most part Sunni dominated with support arriving from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, while the Alawites continue to receive massive assistance from the Iranians, who see themselves as the leader of the Shiite world, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Russians are of course also supporting the Syrian regime, making this a dangerous scenario pitting the U.S. versus Russia just when we thought the Cold War was over.

The question thus becomes what should Obama do? The first thing is for him to find a way to avoid attacking Syria while saving face. This means accepting Russia’s proposal of putting Syrian chemical weapons under UN control. The second is to try and find a political solution to this civil war. The U.S. along with the rest of the world needs to understand that Alawites and other minorities will never give up power if they fear being massacred should the Sunnis triumph. A new constitution is required that recognizes the country’s ethnic and sectarian divisions, while providing real security to the Alawites and other minority groups. And Syrians need assurances that the country’s secular character will remain intact.

In the end Syria could fall apart, with the Alawites and Kurds setting up separate states in their sphere of influence. But a more realistic solution is for Syrians to look at countries like Bosnia and South Africa for inspiration. In the case of Bosnia, a loose confederation was established between Croatians, Serbians, and Muslims. Critics call it de facto separation but at least it’s keeping the different sectarian groups from massacring one another. Another country that might present a solution is South Africa. In that country, the white community held all the political and military power despite comprising only 12% of the population. The white community agreed to end apartheid and transfer power to the black majority only after receiving guarantees that it would not face persecution. The white community thus continues to exert influence over that country’s security apparatus. Perhaps similar guarantees could be provided for Alawites in Syria.

The Revenge of Geography – By Philip Petraglia

How important is geography in understanding world events? Can we simply discard geography and treat the world as a blank canvas?  Thomas Friedman, the well-respected columnist from the New York Times, even calls the world we live in a “Flat World”, claiming a flat and even playing field.

In a book published in 2012 called the “Revenge of Geography”, Robert D Kaplan brings us all back to earth in emphasizing that geography, like the importance of history, has not gone away, and consequently remains important in determining the fate of nations for decades to come. Yet Kaplan is not a “geographic fatalist” as some have accused him. His aim is simply to remind us that a country’s location on a map is still an important factor to look at in this age of great technological progress.  Who your neighbours are can still determine your country’s security and economic development, especially in times of upheaval.

Thus the current upheaval in Syria is having consequences for neighbouring countries like Turkey, Iran, Jordan, and Lebanon. These countries have already absorbed more than a million refugees fleeing the sectarian violence in Syria, a nation divided between Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Kurds. For these groups, “space and time” as Kaplan puts it, remain important. For geography matters not only between neighbouring states or states in a particular region, but also within a state itself. Most nations remain divided by either language, ethnicity, tribalism, or religion; hence the continued importance of geography.

It goes without saying that few would deny the importance of the internet in helping to bring about change in the Middle East. Nevertheless, it remains true that while technology comes and goes and re-shapes itself, geography is, as Kaplan reminds us, permanent. Canada will always be next door to the United States, while beautiful and unfortunate Lebanon, will always find itself squeezed between Syria and Israel. No amount of technological innovation or economic prosperity will ever allow the enterprising Lebanese to escape that sad fact.

In contrast to Lebanon, some countries have benefited from geography. Kaplan gives the example of the United States, a nation whose sheer size has enabled it to establish economic and political relations with both Asia and Europe. And of course it has no neighbouring nations threatening it militarily. Neither Canada nor Mexico will ever pose a military threat. Kaplan might also have given Canada as an example. Not only is Canada the second largest country in the world, it also borders the world’s largest economy, providing it with a market for its primary resources. Canada has also had friendly relations with the U.S. since gaining independence from Britain in 1867, thus allowing it to spend money and resources on social programs rather than military hardware.

Kaplan points out that geography makes some nations more naturally cohesive, and that a man-made border that does not match a natural frontier may also be more vulnerable. While this is certainly true, federalism can nevertheless be used to unite a nation divided by geography. A country divided between coastal regions and a mountainous interior could provide these separate regions with some form of local governance through the creation of cantons or provinces, consequently providing minority groups with some form of political representation and cultural protection. Federalism could be used to extinguish the flames of separatism, especially where local groups are provided with linguistic and religious protections, and shared jurisdiction over local resources. Nations with man-made borders can, meanwhile, settle future disputes through treaties regarding water rights and by passing free trade agreements promoting economic prosperity for the region.

Reading “The Revenge of Geography” inevitably made me think of “Germs, Guns, and Steel”, by Professor Jared Diamond, professor of Anthropology at UCLA. In that wonderful book Professor Diamond maintains that certain civilizations were lucky because they happened to find themselves in regions with an abundance of good soils, navigable waterways, and plenty of water. In contrast, other civilizations like those found in Australia were forced to survive in a harsh environment that made simply surviving a major achievement.  While the situation has certainly changed, facts on the ground indicate that it may always be more difficult for sub-Saharan Africans to feed themselves simply because the world’s second largest continent does not enjoy the type of rich soil and rainfall one sees in countries like Vietnam. Geography will always matter for sub-Saharan Africans because most states on that continent are land-locked, with poor soils, and poor transportation routes.

Kaplan is not implying that only geography matters. He would no doubt agree that a nation should do everything to properly modernize and educate its population, promote the rule of law, and establish equality between ethnic and religious groups.  But a country still has to take into consideration that location matters when it comes to transporting goods and antagonizing neighbours. Mongolia cannot afford to antagonize neighbouring China by supporting the U.S on every foreign policy issue, while countries in the African interior must recognize that transporting manufactured goods to the West will be expensive compared to what it costs in China’s coastal cities. Technology is important but keeping the sea lanes open counts even more when one considers that most of the world’s trade is still done through shipping. The Panama Canal consequently remains important and technology can only be used to improve it, not replace it. Education remains important in promoting economic development, but coastal regions continue to be more economically dynamic than interior ones. Perhaps this will change but coastal regions certainly seem to have a head start.

This begs the question as to why Kaplan wrote this book. To a certain degree it’s to warn U.S. policy makers not to overreach by involving America in foreign conflicts to distant from its shores to ever have lasting influence. Afghanistan and Iraq come to mind. These countries will always be more influenced by what’s going on in its neighbourhood than by any U.S. policy, no matter how well intentioned. Shiites in Iraq will continue to have close ties with Shiites in Iran, and Kurds in northern Iraq will seek some kind of alliance with Kurds in neighbouring Turkey. Iraqi Sunnis will meanwhile continue to seek support from the larger Sunni Arab world as Sunnis and Shiites continue to fight one another for regional hegemony. This is something that no amount of technology can ever supplant.

 In the end, Kaplan is simply advising policy makers to learn from geography by respecting it while not becoming hostage to it.