A Critical Commentary on the AAG Geography and Military Study Committee Report

Abstract

The formation of the American Association of Geographers (AAG) Geography and Military Study Committee by the AAG Council in April 2017 and the submission of the report by the Committee to Council in February 2019 were important events for the discipline. Yet, to date, the Committee's report has received very little attention or comment. This article provides a critical analysis, focusing on the report's claim that the AAG should leave it up to individuals whether to engage with the military, an argument made on the grounds of diversity and academic freedom. Although the report's description of the status quo appears accurate, we find the ethical reasoning and recommended policy changes wanting. Notwithstanding its limitations, the report provides a valuable basis for a clear public discussion about the role of the AAG during a period of focused involvement and investments by the U.S. military-intelligence community in the discipline of geography.

Geography and ethics II: Justification and the ethics of anti-oppression

“…Reflecting this tension, Buttimer (1974: 1) wrote that neither objective or subjective approaches to ethics ‘deals adequately with the ambiguous arena of ideals and conflicts’ in geographic praxis. Recent debates over American geography’s relation to the U.S. military show these considerations continue to matter, such as whether human dignity is an absolute value, or whether some oblique harms are justified given the situational contexts of ethics (see the exchange: Wainwright and Weaver 2021, 2022; Rose-Redwood et al, 2022).…”