p******n
发帖数: 388 | 1 现实中家里三代估计连个一官半职都没有。都是平头百姓家长大的。
真可笑。到死你的高见都不会被我帝考虑一丁点。 | l*******2
发帖数: 1 | 2 我说了美帝不会撤军阿富汗，美帝就采纳了。
【在 p******n 的大作中提到】
: 现实中家里三代估计连个一官半职都没有。都是平头百姓家长大的。
: 真可笑。到死你的高见都不会被我帝考虑一丁点。
| m*********t
发帖数: 858 | 3 本版没有白皮
确实很难被我帝看上
【在 p******n 的大作中提到】
: 现实中家里三代估计连个一官半职都没有。都是平头百姓家长大的。
: 真可笑。到死你的高见都不会被我帝考虑一丁点。
| l*******2
发帖数: 1 | 4 没有，我感觉美帝一直都很重视我的意见。季博士股票就是一例。
【在 m*********t 的大作中提到】
: 本版没有白皮
: 确实很难被我帝看上
| l*******2
发帖数: 1 | 5 你们看美帝今天这篇文章，就和我前几天关于美军撤出阿富汗的后果的观点是一致的。
US withdrawal from Afghanistan spells dangerous geopolitical realignments
BY S. ENDERS WIMBUSH, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/02/21 06:00 PM EDT 73THE
VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
The Biden administration, like its predecessor, is poised to withdraw the
remaining American troops from Afghanistan — at great cost to both its own
and its allies’ interests.
By treating Afghanistan as a small stand-alone conflict of interest only to
voters in the United States, withdrawing a few thousand soldiers to end
America’s longtime commitment reframes a strategic failure as political
relief. But relief will be short-lived, as America’s absence from the
competition emboldens its adversaries, including a host of nuclear states
and credible nuclear aspirants, to reconsider objectives, redesign
strategies, and combine capabilities in ways that will threaten U.S.
interests over the longer term and across a larger geopolitical map.
American presence in the heart of Central Asia has long figured as a key
determinant in the strategies of the region’s other actors.
If the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan, all — repeat all — of these actors
will change their strategies to advance agendas that they could not have
realized while the U.S. was present.
It makes no difference why the U.S. intervened in the first place; forget
pulling out because “the job is done.” Fast forward 20 years, and
intervention created a new strategic calculus for the region’s other actors
that has limited their objectives and tempered their strategies across a
range of their interests, desires, and aspirations. Withdrawal will destroy
these restraints.
Several allies will see U.S. withdrawal as dangerous to their own strategic
defense. India, which is heavily invested in Afghanistan’s viability,
springs to mind — because U.S. withdrawal will expose India to both China's
and Pakistan’s machinations. Both will relish the moment at India’s
expense. Meanwhile, the message to India will be unequivocal: the U.S. is an
untrustworthy partner for other “strategic alliance” activities into
which it is pushing India in support of America’s security agenda.
Even tiny Georgia, which has sent hundreds of its soldiers to support the U.
S. military in Afghanistan in hopes that this would burnish its application
for full NATO membership, will suffer America’s thumb in its eye. Its claim
will look much less credible for supporting the losing side.
Stay tuned for China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Russia, all the Central Asian
states — and even those of the South Caucasus — to adapt their strategies
to account for the consequences of U.S. withdrawal.
It won’t be pretty.
Some of these actors will likely combine capabilities. Think China, Russia,
and Iran for openers, with other currently unimaginable combinations to
follow. Powerful neighbors will jeopardize the welcome gains in development,
security, and cooperation among the Central Asian “stans,” who view
America’s commitment to neighboring Afghanistan as organic to its support
for themselves.
Successive administrations have long resisted building an understanding of
the dynamics of Eurasia’s geopolitical competition into a coherent American
strategy for the region. A chorus from the State Department sings that the
U.S. has lots and lots of programs for Afghanistan. Not to worry, they say,
our competitive position is secure. This is what they always claim, never
understanding that programs are not strategy. They are like plumbers
insisting that they have lots of wrenches, without ever understanding the
plumbing architecture.
This administration’s — and the last one’s — simplistic rejection of “
forever wars” reveals a deep misunderstanding of the persistent
requirements of geopolitical competition in a region of vital U.S. interests.
It is time to replace a one-dimensional “strategy” for Afghanistan based
on the fiction that we cut our losses pulling out. Afghanistan is messy, to
be sure, but it is nothing like the mess that will ensue from all other
regional actors re-setting objectives and designing more aggressive
strategies — inevitably including dangerous opportunism and miscalculations
— as they move to profit from America’s lack of strategic understanding
and sustainable resolve. Our modest investment in Afghanistan is a sensible
and effective brake on this momentum.
S. Enders Wimbush is president of StrateVarious Inc of Grand Rapids, Mich.,
and Distinguished Fellow for Strategic Studies at the American Foreign
Policy Council. He previously served as governor of the U.S. Broadcasting
Board of Governors and director of Radio Liberty (1987-1993) and has held
senior positions with the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the
Hudson Institute. | c********6
发帖数: 370 | 6 那个西尼克恨不得把心都掏给美帝， 可惜只能键盘上BB。 | b*****e
发帖数: 53215 | 7 老色狼morally white
【在 m*********t 的大作中提到】
: 本版没有白皮
: 确实很难被我帝看上
| d***u
发帖数: 943 | 8
撸冠和论政是将军们的两大精神升华的手段
【在 p******n 的大作中提到】
: 现实中家里三代估计连个一官半职都没有。都是平头百姓家长大的。
: 真可笑。到死你的高见都不会被我帝考虑一丁点。
| p******n
发帖数: 388 | 9 那不叫采纳你的，那是采纳别人的。你刚好蒙对一个。
【在 l*******2 的大作中提到】
: 我说了美帝不会撤军阿富汗，美帝就采纳了。
| x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 10 小将指点江山是为土鳖 不是为你帝
【在 p******n 的大作中提到】
: 现实中家里三代估计连个一官半职都没有。都是平头百姓家长大的。
: 真可笑。到死你的高见都不会被我帝考虑一丁点。
| p******n
发帖数: 388 | 11 中帝美帝，一样。
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 小将指点江山是为土鳖 不是为你帝
| l*******2
发帖数: 1 | 12 那巧合也太多了吧
【在 p******n 的大作中提到】
: 那不叫采纳你的，那是采纳别人的。你刚好蒙对一个。
| l*******2
发帖数: 1 | 13 是中美一起指点，牛逼的很。
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 小将指点江山是为土鳖 不是为你帝
|
|
