The Strategic Meaning of Obama’s Surge in Afghanistan

Published in Wen Wei Po
(Hong Kong) on 17 December 2009
by 馬建波 (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Xiao qu. Edited by .

Edited by Robin Silberman

Around the axis of Afghanistan, Central Asia has a special geopolitical advantage and has long been strategically bridging the gap between the Middle East and East Asia. During the Cold War, under the influence of the Eastern Europe and USSR military powers, Central Asia was the battlefield of the military force expansion and the arms race between the U.S. and the USSR. Therefore, the Western countries, especially the U.S., have been coveting this area since WWII, and will spare no effort to get the most out of it.

At the beginning of this year, President Obama, the new master of the White House, responded soon after his swearing in, stating that he would pull troops out of Iraq and send 17,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. On one hand, this denotes that the battlefront and the strategic center of the anti-terrorist combat is moving toward Central Asia; in the meanwhile, it also shows that the Obama administration’s troop surge strategy for Central Asia is much the same as the former Bush administration’s surge strategy for Afghanistan —namely, the enhancement and continuity of America’s Central Asia strategy. For the U.S., which is currently trapped in a financial crisis, pushing the Central Asia strategy forward seems particularly urgent.

President Obama Discloses the Draft of the Central Asia Strategy

The huge deficit (about 1.8 trillion dollars) and the U.S. unemployment rate (10 percent), along with the lagging economic recovery, have vexed president Obama greatly. He will have to make effective plans so as to turn the tide and win over the Americans people's support. After about two months of urgent consultations with military leaders, President Obama at last announced his new Central Asia strategy while at West Point. The U.S. government will continue anti-terrorist activities in Afghanistan, sending 30,000 more soldiers by the summer of 2010 and gradually withdraw from Afghanistan starting the summer of 2011.

Soon after, NATO announced a troop surge of 9,500 soldiers. The media and the White House said the main reason for this troop surge is to support the anti-terrorist combat efforts, clear the Taliban and al-Qaida forces in Afghanistan and Palestine, stabilize Central Asia and make appropriate preparations for the coming withdrawal from Afghanistan. However, with anti-terrorist combat that has lasted eight years and the already well suppressed terrorist force, we may have to read between the lines to get what is really behind this large scale troop surge. For now, the U.S. and NATO have 103,000 soldiers in Afghanistan – 68,000 American and 35,000 NATO soldiers.

After the new surge, the garrison would reach 142,500. According to this trend and the request by NATO, the troop surge will continue. This is apparently a preparation and strategic deployment for another war or a rearrangement of the military disposition in Central Asia. Therefore, the so-called “troop surge with the purpose of withdrawal” is only a mask — to redeploy in Central Asia is the true intent. Controlling Central Asia would be like killing two birds with one stone.

As we can see from the above analysis, the core of the U.S. strategy in Central Asia is to be preemptive, build firewalls against China and Russia, amputate Central Asia, take control of Iran, counterbalance East Asia and finally realize the ambition of global domination. Taking geographical features, geopolitics and historical influence into consideration, President Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan, with even deeper meanings, will kill two birds with one stone.

First of all, the U.S. government regards the Afghan garrison as a breakthrough point, so America can quickly take control and command ground in Central Asia and then compress the defense buffer zone in northwest China to restrain China’s rising. Meanwhile, this will stop Russia from its westward expansion, coordinating with NATO’s eastward expansion and restricting Russia in the Far East.

Secondly, if the U.S. were to completely solve the Iranian nuclear issue, it would make preparation for war likely to occur. Iran and Iraq are two major countries in Central Asia and have long been the major obstacles of the American military's eastward expansion for oil imports from the Far East. The Iraq issue had already been settled by the Bush administration, using the excuse of exterminating weapons of mass destruction; while in Iran, the religious cohesion, political conviction and military might are comparatively stronger than in Iraq. Additionally, Iran’s geographic structure and situation are also much more complicated, so it’s no easy task to solve the Iranian issue. The Bush administration had no time to continue addressing this issue so it had to be handed down to the Obama administration. President Obama’s troop surge for Afghanistan has already shown the sword to completely solve the Iranian nuclear issue.

Thirdly, as for the U.S., they think that if they can take full control of Iran, they can then take full control of the Middle East and West Asia, and hence cut the west passage of China’s energy supply. This will also boost U.S. prestige in controlling the world energy supply, pushing China into an energy bottleneck, tamping the base of America’s position as world leader and resumption of a stronger dollar. Meanwhile, once the anti-terrorist combat gets worse or the U.S. declares war on Iran, huge profits will be made by American munitions companies and the aircraft industry. As a result, everything will be easier for President Obama to carry out his plans to revitalize the American economy and improve the labor market.

And, last but not least, after eight years of anti-terrorist combat, the garrison and continuously increased number of troops in Afghanistan have been the base for carrying out the Central Asia strategy. The U.S. government will not give up control over Central Asia and will continue building its Central Asia strategy, which will become the main focus of the U.S. government, instead of focusing on being the main force in the war on terrorism. Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which was founded for the purpose of cracking down on terrorism and economic cooperation between China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, is put to the test under this situation and its influence in Central and East Asia will be challenged as well.


奧巴馬增兵阿富汗的戰略深意

 中亞地區以阿富汗為軸心,具有重要的戰略地緣優勢。長期以來,其成為架構中東與東亞區域的戰略橋樑。冷戰時期,該區域一直是美蘇軍備競賽與武力擴張的戰略要衝,也曾是前蘇聯和東歐陣營的軍力覆蓋範圍。因此,自二戰後,以美國為首的西方陣營,對此區域一直是虎視眈眈、密謀佈局而不遺餘力。

 今年初,白宮新主奧巴馬上台伊始,就迅速作出從伊拉克有序撤軍和增兵阿富汗1.7萬人的軍事決定。一方面表明美國所主導的反恐陣線和戰略重心,正向中亞轉移。同時也顯示奧巴馬政府以阿富汗為節點的中亞增兵戰略,與當年小布什政府出兵阿富汗的核心戰略乃一脈相承,這也正是美國中亞戰略伏筆的鞏固和延續。面對受全球金融海嘯衝擊而陷於經濟困境的美國而言,奧巴馬對中亞戰略的推進顯得更為迫切。

奧巴馬亮出中亞戰略伏筆

 亮劍的時機終於到了,美國政府高昂的財政赤字(將達1.8萬億美元)和失業率(10%),及復甦緩慢的經濟已讓奧巴馬備感困擾。他必須盡快亮劍出招,以挽回民意。在經歷了兩個多月的內閣最高軍事會議緊急磋商後,12月1日,奧巴馬終於在西點軍校亮出了中亞戰略的伏筆,其宣佈了美國繼續阿富汗反恐戰爭的新戰略,即:在明年夏季之前,完成阿富汗增兵三萬的計劃;並於2011年夏季開始逐步從阿富汗撤軍。北約也隨即表示將增兵9500人。白宮和傳媒表面解讀增兵戰略的主要理由是深化反恐戰爭,盡快清剿阿富汗和巴基斯坦的塔利班武裝組織及阿爾蓋達組織的恐怖勢力,以戡定中亞局勢,為盡快從阿富汗撤軍做好準備。然而,面對一場已持續8年的局部反恐戰爭和已受壓制的恐怖組織勢力,如此大兵壓境,未免讓人聯想另有深意。目前美國和北約在阿富汗駐軍已達10.3萬人,其中:美軍6.8萬,北約盟軍3.5萬。若實施此次增兵計劃後,多國部隊在阿富汗駐軍將達到14.25萬人,按此趨勢和北約要求,未來增兵行動仍將繼續。這顯然是在為另一場戰爭或是重構中亞軍力版圖作集結準備和全面的戰略部署。因此,「增兵」表面文章是為了「撤軍」;而實質意圖應是對「中亞戰略」的新部署。

控制中亞一箭多雕

 由上分析可見,美國「中亞戰略」的核心就是要搶佔先手,戰略佈防與圍堵中、俄,支解中東;控制伊朗;制衡亞洲,為繼續推進美國的全球霸主新戰略謀篇佈局。聯繫中亞地區的地理特徵、地緣政治與歷史影響,奧巴馬所推動主導的阿富汗增兵新戰略,更顯一箭多雕之功效,戰略意義深遠。

 首先,美國以阿富汗駐軍為切入點,快速建立中亞地區的軍事戰略制高點,壓縮中國西北防禦緩衝帶,以全面圍堵和制衡中國的崛起;同時阻斷俄羅斯西進路徑,配合北約東擴戰略,將俄羅斯在遠東地區圈住。

 第二,為徹底解決伊朗核問題作好軍事戰爭的集結準備。伊朗和伊拉克同為中東雙虎,長期成為美國軍事東進和油元控制的兩大障礙。伊拉克已被小布什以清剿大殺傷性武器為藉口解決;而伊朗宗教凝聚、政治信仰與軍事力量相較伊拉克要強悍許多,其地理結構和地域縱深也比伊拉克複雜得多。因此,美國要想徹底解決伊朗問題,並非朝夕之功所能及,小布什沒有時間繼續偉業,惟有將解決伊朗的接力棒交給了奧巴馬。奧巴馬大規模增兵阿富汗計劃,已亮出徹底解決伊朗核問題的利劍。

 第三,對美國而言,徹底解決了伊朗問題,就能全面控制了中東和西亞,從而也就切斷了中國西線的能源補給通道,並增強了控制全球能源的話語權。迫使中國陷入經濟發展的能源瓶頸,為鞏固美國全球霸主地位和強勢美元的重臨,建立堅實的基礎。同時,一旦反恐戰爭全面深化或美伊開戰,將為美國的軍火商們和航空業帶來巨大商機,也將給奧巴馬的重整實體產業、改善就業的振興經濟計劃如虎添翼。

 第四,歷經8年的中亞反恐戰爭,已使美國從出兵、駐軍到增兵阿富汗,成為實施中亞戰略的支撐點,美國將不會放棄繼續構築中亞的戰略控制體系。因此,美國將由中亞的反恐戰爭主體,轉變為中亞戰略的推進主導。由中國、俄羅斯聯邦、哈薩克斯坦、吉爾吉斯斯坦、塔吉克斯坦等五國為反恐和經濟合作而建立的「上海合作組織」,及其在中亞和東亞的影響也將受到嚴峻的挑戰和考驗。

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Topics

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Related Articles

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?

Hong Kong: What Makes US Trade War More Dangerous than 2008 Crisis: Trump

Hong Kong: China, Japan, South Korea Pave Way for Summit Talks; Liu Teng-Chung: Responding to Trump

Hong Kong: With Friends Like Trump’s America, Who Needs Enemies?

Hong Kong: A ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Explanation of Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy