The Modification and the Trend of the US New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

DU Youkang

2011-01-01

Abstract:Shortly after sitting on his throne,President Obama declared the New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan,and then modified and adjusted it for several times.Due to its structural flaws and contradictions,the effectiveness of this strategy is quite limited,and there are still some uncertainties for its developments in future.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Valuation of the US Afghanistan Strategy

赵华胜

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0257-0289.2009.06.001

2009-01-01

Abstract:Just after his inauguration as the US President,Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan only within two months;it is the first strategic document of Obama's administration. It is an attempt for Obama to break the US plight in Afghanistan with many different ideas and policies compared with the Bush Administration. Based on more than seven-year experience and lessons from the war in Afghanistan,the new strategy is practical and well-targeted and is expected to get some positive effects. However,there are also a series of uncertain and weak factors in this new strategy. Generally speaking,it is relayed on technicality, and Afghanistan is involving a profound crisis with political reasons which can be controlled but is difficult to be solved by technical means. In a certain sense,the new strategy is a prelude to the withdraw of US troops.
A Comment on the Effect of the New Af-Pak Strategy

Wang Lian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-1508.2009.03.003

2009-01-01

Abstract:The new Af-Pak Strategy put forward by the Obama government indicates the eastward shift of the US anti-terrorist battlefield from Iraq,the border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan turn into the main front. It is quite evident that the remaining forces of Taliban,Al Kaeda and the other extremists which were defeated and dispersed to Pakistan after 9·11 will encounter powerful military strike from the US.Therefore,the new development of the regional situation in central and South Asia requires a sustained attention.
An Onslaught Against China ' s Diplomacy and Security from the Obama Administration ' s Adjustments to its Asia-Pacific Strategy

Zhu Feng,Zhou Xinzheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6241.2012.03.001

2012-01-01

Abstract:In 2011, new and historic developments took place in the strategic environment of Northeast Asia, with the adjustments by the United States to its AsiaPacific strategy having the most far-reaching significance. The revised "New Military Strategy" enables the U.S. to "return to the Asia-Pacific". The transformation of the U.S. military has proved highly adaptive to meeting the country’s military and defense needs in a "post-post-Cold War era". Reassessing the "China threat" will also reassure the U.S. that its strategic assets (alliance relationships) will not slip. Moreover, the Obama administration’s toughened China policy has emerged partially in response to electoral politics in the run up to the 2012 general elections. For now, it is very clear that the U.S. "pivot to the Asia-Pacific" will amount to an onslaught on China. A new era, in which China and the U.S. will compete and cooperate with each other and enter into potential confrontation with each other on several concrete issues, has already emerged.
The US Nuclear War Plan:Continuity and Changes in the New Century

Zhang Yang,Liu Yue

2011-01-01

Abstract:Since the early Cold War,the American military has maintained and developed a comprehensive nuclear war plan.That plan,the Single Integrated Operational Plan(SIOP)was seriously criticized for its gross demonstration of overkill due to its single targeting objective.Furthermore,it could not adjust to the new national security threats facing the United States in the post-Cold War period.After September 11,SIOP was renamed "OPLAN 8044" by the Bush administration and revised to "OPLAN 8010-08" at the end of his administration,which named Strategic Deterrence and Global Strike.This historical development of the US strategic war plan demonstrates the great changes in the US nuclear employment policy,still in process.The Obama administration's nuclear employment policy could be understood as the continuity of the US strategic war plan.This paper posits that the Obama administration,given the nuclear capability of Russia and China,might strengthen the arms control negotiation with these countries,but will not unilaterally abandon the strategic deterrence role in its new war plan.Moreover,although the Obama administration may gradually limit the role of nuclear weapons in the US war plan,the uncertainty of nuclear employment still exists and the plan's targeting objectives may even expand.
Tentative analysis of the 2010 National Security Strategy report of the United States

Zhang Zhi-ping

Abstract:The 2010 National Security Strategy report is the first report of the kind since the inauguration of Obama.Based on the main content of the report, the paper analyzed the main characteristics of the report in military strategy, anti-terrorism strategy and the US strategy towards China.Aiming at the interest of the US,the report weakens the preemption strategy and unilateralism strategy in the Bush era and pursues the combination of foreign affairs,military affairs and security policies.It reflects the new tendency of the Obama administration for the adjustment of the national security strategy of the United States under the new strategic situations.

Political Science
The United States’s Selective Containment Policy and Its “Pivot to Asia”

黄河

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-1026.2015.02.008

2015-01-01

Abstract:Containment strategy presenter George F.Kennan believes that China’s rich natural and human resources will pose a direct threat to the United States.In this regard,Kennan pointed out that the United States should adopt “selective containment strategy”towards China by using economic,political and military means. Since Obama took office in 2009,the United States believes its influence and dominance in the Asia-Pacific region was “challenged”by China’s development,thus putting up the so-called “Obama doctrine”and “Pivot to Asia”strategy.Instead of adopting the “global containment strategy”based on military forces of the Cold War period,this time the U.S.uses Kennan’s selective containment strategy,posing new threats to China’s overseas security interests in the Asia-Pacific region .
US and SCO:From Bush to Obama

Huasheng Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0452-8832.2010.02.006

2010-01-01

International Studies

Abstract:With US foreign policy shift in Obama administration and the deteriorated situation in Afghanistan,there are early signs of policy adjustment towards Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).US is likely to enhance its cooperation and strengthen the ties with SCO in a more practical manner in the future.
Managing Leadership in the Indo-Pacific the United States' South Asia Strategy Revisited

Yang Xiaoping

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/s2377740017500294

2017-01-01

China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies

Abstract:The United States' South Asia strategy has been based on the calculation of its overall national security priorities. In practice, when U.S. priorities are at odds with those of other regional powers, Washington tends to adopt a "no-expectations" psychological approach toward its regional partners to avoid disappointment, a technical "de-hyphenation strategy" to improve policy efficiency, and practical cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of its South Asia strategy. However, Washington often has to come to terms with the realities on the ground with regard to its leadership role in South Asia. For the time being, Washington has articulated its strategic objective in South Asia, that is, a regional balance of power in favor of the United States vis-a-vis its perceived competitor, China. Therefore, it has conducted conditional cooperation with Pakistan and Afghanistan on land, and committed support for India on security issues in the Indian Ocean, so as to hedge against China's growing presence in South Asia. The enhancement of U.S.-India defense and security cooperation has fueled China's suspicion of India's intention to join the U.S.-led coalition against it. By the logic of balance of power, the United States will continue to regard India as a strategic counterweight to China, which is likely to increase the possibility of strategic tensions and conflicts between China and India that may finally entangle the United States.
A Review of the U.S.'s Strategy towards Asia

Shen Dingli

2007-01-01

Abstract:The U.S.'s strategy towards Asia is an important part of its global strategy.This article is focused on the U.S.'s relations with Asia, with special attention paid to three major issues, namely“counter-terrorism”,“prevention of nuclear proliferation”and“the rise of big powers”,as well as the impacts and chocks on Asia resulted from the change of the U.S.'s strategy.The main interest of the U.S.in the new century is closely connected with Asia. Although the U.S.was dramatically adjusting its Asian strategy over the past few years,no significant results have turned out so far. Confronted with challenges at multiple levels, the U.S.has to rely on tentative or stopgap measures,achieving temporary goals in some aspects at the expenses of its long-term goals in others.
The Trend of Indo-Pacific Strategy and Its Impact on the US-Japan Alliance ——Creation and Evolution of the Double Ambiguity, Double Guarantee and Double Containment Strategy

Lan Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16619/j.cnki.rmltxsqy.2018.15.004

2018-01-01

Abstract:In recent years, the US policy discussions on the Indo-Pacific region have gradually changed from conceptual design to a strategic level since the Obama administration. As a result, the Trump administration adopts the Indo-Pacific strategy. For that, Japan has played a very important guiding role. As the US and Japan advances it together, the Indo-Pacific strategy has had the three characteristics of double ambiguity, double guarantee and double containment, which has a compound effect on the Japan-US alliance with mixed resilience and synergy. Compared with the "Asia-Pacific" strategy, carrying out the grand "Indo-Pacific strategy" requires more costs, and the Indian-Pacific countries are paying close attention to its development trends.
The New Obama Administration's East Asian Strategy and Its Impact on the Korean Nuclear Issue

Zhao Kejin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6241.2009.03.004

2009-01-01

Abstract:As the U.S.makes some readjustments to its global strategic focuses in response to the challenges from financial crisis, the new Obama administration's East Asian strategy strongly tends to be a stable one.That is to say that the Administration will try its best to maintain an equilibrium in its relations with China and other regional powers in Asia on the premise that U.S.-Japanese alliance serves as an anchor of its Asian strategy.The tendency of the U.S.East Asian strategy to strive for stability will possibly help to highten North Korea's psychology for change, leading U.S.-DPRK relations along a track in which North Korea is advancing and the U.S.is retreating.In this way social ecology in the U.S.will again be unlikely to give a lot of leeway for B.Obama.So the future direction of the Korean nuclear issue is worth careful attention.
Re-examination of the Strategic Superiority of Our Country's Mid-western Part under the New Situations

Qian Cao

1999-01-01

Abstract:In thc new circumstance,Chinese mid-western part's strategic superiority has encountered some seriousproblems, so the government should adopt the industrialization strategry of the market-leading direction instead of that of the resourceleading direction and adopt the industrial layout policy of investment-guiding way.
US Indo-Pacific Strategy and Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: The Hedging Option

Farhan Hanif Siddiqi Associate Professor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53532/ss.042.01.00153

2022-08-04

Strategic Studies

Abstract:Pakistan finds itself at the horns of a strategic dilemma as the US-China rivalry intensifies in international politics. At the heart of the dilemma is the spectre of choosing between the US and China which has the intended effect of raising costs for Pakistan’s foreign policy. Recent commentaries on Pakistan’s foreign policy advocate the need for Pakistan to strike a balance between China and the US. In contradistinction to such commentaries, the present article makes a more nuanced case for the ‘hedging’ strategy. Hedging involves policies that advocate a mixture of return-maximization and risk-contingency planning that circumvents the dominance of major powers. The article argues that Pakistan’s hedging strategy necessitates the avoidance of binaries in international politics, domestic political stability and the prioritization of economic gains.
Why America's Grand Strategy Has Not Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment

Patrick Porter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00311

2018-01-01

International Security

Abstract:Abstract Why has U.S. grand strategy persisted since the end of the Cold War? Despite shocks such as the 2008 global financial crisis and the costs of the war in Iraq—circumstances that ought to have stimulated at least a revision—the United States remains committed to a grand strategy of “primacy.” It strives for military preponderance, dominance in key regions, the containment and reassurance of allies, nuclear counterproliferation, and the economic “Open Door.” The habitual ideas of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, or the “Blob,” make U.S. grand strategy hard to change. The United States' military and economic capabilities enable the U.S. government to pursue primacy, but the embedded assumptions of the Blob make primacy the seemingly natural choice. Thanks to the Blob's constraining power, alternative grand strategies based on restraint and retrenchment are hardly entertained, and debate is narrowed mostly into questions of execution and implementation. Two cases—the presidency of Bill Clinton and the first year of the presidency of Donald Trump—demonstrate this argument. In each case, candidates promising change were elected in fluid conditions that we would expect to stimulate a reevaluation of the United States' commitments. In each case, the Blob asserted itself successfully, at least on the grand strategic fundamentals. Change in grand strategy is possible, but it would require shocks large enough to shake the assumptions of the status quo and a president willing to be an agent of change and prepared to absorb the political costs of overhauling Washington's traditional design.

international relations
The New American Middle East Strategy and Its Inherent Dilemmas

Pan Zhongqi

2006-01-01

Abstract:Based upon changes in international security situation after 9/11,the Bush administration of the U.S.initiated a new Middle East strategy,"a forward strategy of freedom",to transform the Middle East through democratization.This new strategy has at least three inherent dilemmas in identified objectives,threat perceptions,and the balance between means and ends,which of themselves are difficult to overcome.Although the new strategy is new in terms of democratic transformation,it is not new in terms of its inherent dilemmas.As with previous strategies,the new American Middle East strategy does not promise any optimistic anticipation for its future success.
On Obama Administration's Nuclear Nonproliferation Policies

Jiang Zhenfei

2009-01-01

Abstract:After United States President Barack Obama came into office,US nuclear nonproliferation policies underwent radical transformations. These shifts are in part due to the review by Obama's administration on the nuclear nonproliferation policies of its predecessor,and in part owing to the efforts at improving the US international image and the strategic need to safeguard US leadership in world affairs. Most importantly,however,it is deemed a means to exert more pressures on North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. Obama's changes to US nuclear nonproliferation policies are indeed helpful at putting international nuclear arms control efforts back on track. To China,US's new policy direction will bring forth multiple effects-both positive as well as negative ones. Sino-US cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation will be carried over from the Bush era,while China will benefit from the overall improvement in international security environment;however,China will need to be wary of the possible constrains to its rise,threats to its "minimal deterrence" nuclear capacity,a marginalization of its role in the Six-party Talks,as well as the uncertainties that Obama's new nuclear nonproliferation initiatives can effect on regional stability so essential to China's peaceful development.
US Security Strategy for Asia Pacific and India’s Role

Sobia Hanif and Muhammad Khan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53532/ss.038.01.00158

2018-04-27

Strategic Studies

Abstract:Following a changeover in the US corridors of power after the election of Donald Trump as President of the US, America’s allies and partners are concerned about the US’s willingness to sustain its leadership role and security commitments in the Asia Pacific region. China’s rising military power and the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP); considering the economic leg of the ‘rebalancing strategy.’ This development has further contributed in increasing regional anxieties. Viewed through the lens of Neoclassical realism, the paper argues that the US emphasis on India’s role within Asia Pacific is a consequence of consistencies in the US strategic priorities that value India as a regional counterweight to China’s growing influence while also preserving the US dominance within the region. The paper analyses how the Indo-US relations have progressed from President Obama to President Trump despite the vastly different styles of leadership and asserts that the overarching pattern of the Indo-US strategic relations has not changed in any significant way. India will continue to play a central role in the US security strategy for Asia Pacific and the benefits accrued will in turn contribute towards the expansion of its own geo-political influence within the region.
Thinking Inertia and Path Dependence in Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States

Yulong Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpep.v10i.5217

2023-08-16

BCP Education & Psychology

Abstract:With the profound adjustment of the international pattern, the Indo-Pacific region has increasingly become one of the most active regions on the international stage and the focus of American foreign strategy has shifted from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region. By observing its policy documents and diplomatic practice on Indo-Pacific regions, we can find that the US Indo-Pacific strategy presents the thinking inertia, which is manifested by its hard power supremacy, the superiority of values, and the presupposition of imaginary enemies. Meanwhile, the United States emphasizes military means, establishes value alliances, and implements competitive blockade policies, showing its path dependence. The deployment and implementation of the US Indo-Pacific strategy are menacing and pose a long-term challenge and threat to China’s development. Based on these tensions, China may summarize and refine the foreign strategic thinking and path of the United States, so as to clarify its intentions and trends before making preventive responses.

English Else
Connotation and Dilemma of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy and China’s Responses

Peng Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7693-1_6

2019-01-01

Abstract:The collective rise of the eastern countries represented by China and India has caused the shift of world’s center of gravity. In response to this situation, the Indo-Pacific region with the ocean as the main boundary has become the central stage for the game of all countries. Indo-Pacific has also quickly transformed from a geographic concept into geographic reality and entered into national strategies of various countries. The name of the US’s Indo-Pacific strategy may change with the change of the Trump administration, but the core content of the Indo-Pacific strategy will remain unchanged. In other words, the US strengthens the existing alliances and establishes new alliances to contain China’s rapid rise, thus preventing any force in the Indo-Pacific region from threatening the US hegemony. The US’ current Indo-Pacific strategy is the concentric circles of the US-Indo-Pacific, the US-South Asia, and the US-India established according to the realism and the Cold War mentality based on the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia-Pacific”. The Australia-India-Japan-US alliance or Quad, which has been greatly discussed in China, may not be established realistically. However, the United States is increasing its military presence in Indo-Pacific region and establishing the bilateral or multilateral networks through alliances in the Indo-Pacific region. The Indo-Pacific order, aimed to establish a “free and open Indo-Pacific”, is actually an exclusive system design against China, which will have a direct impact on China’s “Belt and Road” and Indo-Pacific maritime cooperation. To this end, while prudently and resolutely promoting the implementation of the “Belt and Road”, China should encourage the institutional design of ASEAN-dominated Indo-Pacific structure and support the establishment of an open Indo-Pacific system arrangement based on the existing East Asia Summit. This should become the main content of China’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
A Developmental Perspective of American Hegemony:Critics on President Obama's Strategy for Global Development

Sun Zhe

2009-01-01

Abstract:During his campaign for presidency,Obama made an "uncommon commitment" to the world on global development. After winning the election,he has enthusiastically promoted and implemented the strategy of global development,for the purpose of both exporting democracy and anti-terrorism. The U.S. has a tradition of using foreign aid as a policy tool to serve its national strategy. Obama inherits and expands this tradition by enforcing his global development strategy. Obama's practice not only brought about intense debates inside and outside the U.S.,but also has serious impacts on the process of democratization in the international relations. No matter what effects and results that it will have,the changing attitude of the U.S. towards developing countries demonstrates that the major task of international society has shifted from "democratic peace" to "democratic development".

The Modification and the Trend of the US New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

A Valuation of the US Afghanistan Strategy

A Comment on the Effect of the New Af-Pak Strategy

An Onslaught Against China ' s Diplomacy and Security from the Obama Administration ' s Adjustments to its Asia-Pacific Strategy

The US Nuclear War Plan:Continuity and Changes in the New Century

Tentative analysis of the 2010 National Security Strategy report of the United States

The United States’s Selective Containment Policy and Its “Pivot to Asia”

US and SCO:From Bush to Obama

Managing Leadership in the Indo-Pacific the United States' South Asia Strategy Revisited

A Review of the U.S.'s Strategy towards Asia

The Trend of Indo-Pacific Strategy and Its Impact on the US-Japan Alliance ——Creation and Evolution of the Double Ambiguity, Double Guarantee and Double Containment Strategy

The New Obama Administration's East Asian Strategy and Its Impact on the Korean Nuclear Issue

Re-examination of the Strategic Superiority of Our Country's Mid-western Part under the New Situations

US Indo-Pacific Strategy and Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: The Hedging Option

Why America's Grand Strategy Has Not Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment

The New American Middle East Strategy and Its Inherent Dilemmas

On Obama Administration's Nuclear Nonproliferation Policies

US Security Strategy for Asia Pacific and India’s Role

Thinking Inertia and Path Dependence in Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States

Connotation and Dilemma of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy and China’s Responses

A Developmental Perspective of American Hegemony:Critics on President Obama's Strategy for Global Development