Military landscapes

Abstract

This paper reviews existing approaches to military landscapes, establishing the field’s breadth and variety. It suggests areas for future military landscape research around virtual military landscapes, and considers the landscape effects of military privatization and outsourcing, landscape issues pertaining to non-state military actors, the endurance and effects of post-military landscapes, and the role of landscapes of peace and reconciliation. The paper discusses practices of military landscape exploration, and the contributions that they bring to emergent critical approaches in military studies. The paper argues for the continued validity and specificity of terminologies associated with the category of ‘military’ in the study of such landscapes.

Military Geography

“…Military landscapes can be conceptualized in a great variety of ways (Woodward 2014) but underpinning this range is a focus on the distinctive ways in which military and nonmilitary/civilian actors view, interpret, and represent landscapes, the political functions of these diverse interpretations, and the insights that a specifically landscape-focused approach can bring to understanding the operation of military power. Studies of military understandings of landscape include the specific ways in which ground is read for military purposes, at scales ranging from the efforts of small infantry patrols to assess territory for tactical purposes through to the mechanisms by which swathes of territory are interpreted for broader strategic purposes.…”

War and Terrorism, Geography of

“…Traditionally, geographers have engaged in what has been described as a 'terrain-and-tactics' approach (Woodward, 2013). Here, the emphasis is directed to understanding how physical geography influences the conduct and context of military operations.…”

“…have been subject to extensive criticism and theoretical elaboration" (Loyd, 2012: 477). In part, this trend has been motivated by the pervasive, ever-expanding 'war on terror' (Tyner, 2005(Tyner, , 2007Ingram and Dodds, 2012) and the profuse militarization of society (Woodward, 2005(Woodward, , 2013Gregory and Pred, 2007;Megoran, 2008;Farish and Vitale, 2011). Critical approaches have also been concerned to study not only geographies of 'war' but also (as discussed below) geographies of 'peace'; these efforts have sparked considerable debate on the definitions and meanings of both 'war' and 'peace' as well as the relationship between these two concepts (Kirsch and Flint, 2011).…”

Geography, military geography, and critical military studies

“…In this paper, we use the term "militarism" to refer quite loosely to ideologies which prioritize military capabilities in the resolution of conflicts, and "militarization" as a multidimensional and diverse set of social, cultural, economic, and political processes and practices unified around an intention to gain both elite and popular acceptance for the use of military approaches to social problems and issues (see Flusty et al 2008;Woodward 2014). Our purpose in drawing this distinction here is not to map out arguments about the differences and distinctions between the terminologies and associated conceptualizations of militarism and militarization -we recognize and welcome the idea that these terms are open for debate as part of the wider critical military studies conversation.…”

“…However, rather than being fixed and singular, it has been and continues to be a debated and disputed notion, with a number of schools of thought within and beyond geography debating its constitution and analytical perspectives (see Wylie 2007). Our interest draws from two key concerns within landscape research -the representational and the experiential -both of which enable us to critique the imagined geographies of military activities in specific ways (see also Woodward 2014).…”