Two years after Judd Devermont argued in War on the Rocks that the U.S. must prioritize human geography in foreign policy, the strategy remains inconsistently applied despite rising global threats. Devermont’s 2024 piece, Human Geography Is Mission-Critical, urged Washington to focus on local behaviors and attitudes to craft more effective responses to complex challenges. Yet today, experts say little has changed in how the U.S. integrates these insights into decision-making.

Human geography examines how people interact with their environments, including cultural, social, and political dynamics. Devermont, a former National Intelligence Council official, warned that ignoring these factors risks flawed strategies in conflicts like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s expansion in the South China Sea. While some pockets of the U.S. government have adopted aspects of his approach, broader adoption has lagged.

One notable example comes from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which has increasingly used human geography in programs targeting extremism in West Africa. By mapping local grievances and tribal alliances, USAID’s Sahel stabilization efforts have tailored interventions to specific communities rather than imposing blanket policies. However, these initiatives remain exceptions rather than the rule.

The U.S. military has also experimented with human geography, particularly in counterinsurgency operations. During the Iraq War, units like the U.S. Army’s Human Terrain System deployed anthropologists to advise commanders on local tribal structures. While controversial and later scaled back, the program demonstrated how human geography could inform battlefield decisions—if only temporarily.

Critics argue that bureaucratic inertia and a preference for traditional military or economic metrics still dominate U.S. strategy. A 2025 RAND Corporation study found that 78% of U.S. foreign policy assessments rely on quantifiable data like GDP growth or troop movements, sidelining qualitative insights from human geography. This gap persists even as conflicts like Ukraine show how morale and civilian resistance can shape outcomes as much as military hardware.

Why Human Geography Matters in Modern Conflicts

The war in Ukraine underscores the value of human geography. Ukrainian resilience stems partly from deep cultural ties to land and national identity, factors Devermont highlighted in his original argument. Yet despite this, U.S. aid packages often prioritize weapons over programs addressing Ukraine’s social cohesion or Russia’s propaganda targeting local populations.

Similarly, in Nigeria, U.S. counterterrorism efforts against Boko Haram have struggled when they ignore local governance failures or ethnic tensions. Analysts say this reflects a broader pattern: Washington tends to treat conflicts as technical problems solvable with money or firepower, rather than as human crises requiring nuanced understanding.

Some progress has emerged in diplomacy. The State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations has incorporated human geography into its toolkit, particularly in Myanmar and Sudan. By analyzing social media sentiment and local power brokers, diplomats have adjusted messaging to resonate with diverse audiences—a sharp departure from Cold War-era one-size-fits-all approaches.

Yet obstacles remain. The U.S. intelligence community, for instance, has been slow to adopt human geography into its assessments. While agencies like the CIA track economic and military trends, they often overlook cultural shifts until they erupt into crises. This blind spot was evident in the 2023 Wagner Group mutiny, where analysts underestimated the role of ethnic loyalties in Russia’s military structure.

What’s Next for Human Geography in U.S. Strategy?

Experts say the U.S. must do more than pay lip service to human geography—it needs institutional changes. Recommendations include creating a dedicated human geography unit within the National Security Council and funding research into how local attitudes influence global conflicts. Without these steps, Devermont’s warnings may remain unheeded, leaving the U.S. vulnerable to the very blind spots he identified.

What You Need to Know

  • Source: War on the Rocks
  • Published: April 29, 2026 at 17:30 UTC
  • Category: War
  • Topics: #defense · #military · #geopolitics · #war · #conflict · #human-geography

Read the Full Story

This is a curated summary. For the complete article, original data, quotes and full analysis:

Read the full story on War on the Rocks →

All reporting rights belong to the respective author(s) at War on the Rocks. GlobalBR News summarizes publicly available content to help readers discover the most relevant global news.

Curated by GlobalBR News · April 29, 2026

🇧🇷 Resumo em Português

A guerra híbrida, as disputas territoriais e as crises migratórias exigem mais do que tanques e aviões: elas demandam entender as populações, suas culturas e seus territórios. Nesse cenário, dois anos após o alerta do analista Judd Devermont sobre a necessidade de integrar a geografia humana às estratégias de política externa dos EUA, o país ainda patina para colocar essa abordagem em prática, mesmo diante de ameaças globais cada vez mais complexas. A dificuldade reflete não apenas um problema de recursos, mas de mudança de paradigma em um mundo onde as fronteiras entre guerra, economia e sociedade se dissolvem.

A ausência de uma estratégia robusta de geografia humana nos EUA tem implicações diretas para o Brasil e os países lusófonos. Primeiro, porque a superpotência continua a influenciar — direta ou indiretamente — conflitos e crises em regiões como a África e a América Latina. Segundo, porque a falta de ferramentas para analisar dinâmicas sociais e culturais em territórios estratégicos pode levar a decisões mal informadas, com consequências humanitárias e geopolíticas duradouras. Para nações como o Brasil, que buscam equilíbrio em um cenário multipolar, essa lacuna nos EUA reforça a importância de desenvolver capacidades próprias de inteligência territorial e análise socioespacial.

Ainda não há previsão de quando — ou se — Washington conseguirá fechar essa lacuna, mas a pressão por respostas deve aumentar à medida que crises como a do Sahel ou da Ucrânia se intensificam.

🇪🇸 Resumen en Español

El Gobierno de Estados Unidos sigue sin lograr avances significativos en la incorporación de la geografía humana a su estrategia de política exterior, pese a los crecientes desafíos globales que exigen un enfoque más matizado y territorial. Dos años después de que el experto Judd Devermont alertara sobre esta carencia, Washington mantiene un vacío táctico que limita su capacidad para entender —y responder— a crisis con raíces profundas en dinámicas sociales, étnicas o culturales.

La relevancia del tema para el mundo hispanohablante es directa, pues regiones clave como Latinoamérica, el Sahel africano o el sudeste asiático enfrentan conflictos donde el factor humano —migraciones, tensiones étnicas o control territorial— define el rumbo de las crisis. La falta de integración de estas variables en la política exterior estadounidense no solo debilita su influencia, sino que deja a actores regionales —desde gobiernos hasta grupos armados— con mayor margen de maniobra para moldear escenarios a su favor. Para España y sus aliados en Iberoamérica, esto supone un riesgo añadido: una estrategia global descontextualizada puede traducirse en respuestas fallidas que, tarde o temprano, repercutan en la seguridad y estabilidad del área.