Critical geoeconomics, critique of geoeconomics or something else?

I argue that a genealogical critique of geoeconomics is highly valuable but a critical geoeconomics, as proposed by Mallin and Sidaway, is of less certain value. Even if a useful critical geoeconomics approach is framed, the real traction in a geoeconomic (or geopolitical, or geopolitical economic) explanation has to be gained by specific analytical approaches that are more granular than the general theoretical vistas provided by geoeconomics, geopolitics or geopolitical economy. I highlight this by noting the traction a detailed institutional and power elite analysis provides in explanation of recent ventures by the US National Security State.